Dowsing

[MrW0lf]

That guy just keeps coming up with straw man arguments, non-sequiturs, and woowoo blatherings. For someone who claims to be an experimental physicist he sure seems to be out there.

As admitted before there is no interest in science here. Perhaps there is in history?
http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/examining-skeptics/guy-lyon-playfair/has-csicop-lost-the-thirty-years-war/
Such a can of worms

[Lightages]

WTF are you making incoherent noises about now? Are you a experimental physicist or not? If you say you are again, prove it or shut up. You are getting nuttier every post.

[hermit]

Don't feed the trolls.

[timb]

That guy just keeps coming up with straw man arguments, non-sequiturs, and woowoo blatherings. For someone who claims to be an experimental physicist he sure seems to be out there.

As admitted before there is no interest in science here. Perhaps there is in history?
http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/examining-skeptics/guy-lyon-playfair/has-csicop-lost-the-thirty-years-war/
Such a can of worms

How can you be skeptical about skeptics? By definition, being skeptical about something makes you a skeptic! So, in essence that website is implying that if you’re skeptical about skeptics, you should really be skeptical about your own views, since *you’re* now the skeptic. However, if you’re skeptical about being skeptical about skeptics y....EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE...RECURSION ERROR...DISCONNECTED...AT&Z...READY_

[taydin]

Looks like we need a new top level forum category called "Dowsing", given the amount of interest that exists for it 

And also a few stickys in the that sub-forum:
- What material makes a good dowsing rod?
- I have a very good dowsing rod, but I just can't make it work, what could be wrong?

 

[tautech]

- I have a very good dowsing rod, but I just can't make it work, what could be wrong?

It needs be a special type of Maple and grown in Chile. 

[MrW0lf]

How can you be skeptical about skeptics? By definition, being skeptical about something makes you a skeptic! So, in essence that website is implying that if you’re skeptical about skeptics, you should really be skeptical about your own views, since *you’re* now the skeptic. However, if you’re skeptical about being skeptical about skeptics y....EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE...RECURSION ERROR...DISCONNECTED...AT&Z...READY_

Figure of speech If read actual article then see that this is about genuine skeptic movement being hijacked by pseudoskeptics eg fundamental materialists who are interested in everything but true science.

But if do not like some other links to help navigate reality:
https://www.lesserwrong.com/rationality
http://rationality.org/
https://intelligence.org/

[MrW0lf]

- I have a very good dowsing rod, but I just can't make it work, what could be wrong?

It needs be a special type of Maple and grown in Chile. 

Or just use spectrum analyzer in certain tasks but psst... we really cannot discuss it, far too sciency! Here it is all about opinions...

[Tepe]

we really cannot discuss it, far too sciency!

We know that is beyond your ken.

[MrW0lf]

We know that is beyond your ken.

Not really but trying hard to blend in Stopped posting research links, keeping it to pleasant smalltalk...

[Zero999]

We know that is beyond your ken.

Not really but trying hard to blend in Stopped posting research links, keeping it to pleasant smalltalk...

Because you ran out of studies showing dowsing works any better than chance?

[MrW0lf]

Because you ran out of studies showing dowsing works any better than chance?

Nope, but glad you acknowledge that I have provided some previously

[Mr. Scram]

I see we agreed to flush this one down the shitter too? Okay. Let's do this!

[Zero999]

Because you ran out of studies showing dowsing works any better than chance?

Nope, but glad you acknowledge that I have provided some previously

One questionable study showing a potential positive, in how many showing otherwise? You don't need to be a mathematician to calculate the probability. Take as many bites of that cherry, as you like.

I see we agreed to flush this one down the shitter too? Okay. Let's do this!

That happened fairly early on.

[MrW0lf]

One questionable study showing a potential positive, in how many showing otherwise? You don't need to be a mathematician to calculate the probability. Take as many bites of that cherry, as you like.

There was more than one. In any case - if interested in knowledge one would conduct experiments, which are very simple in this matter. Share experimental results. Discuss improvements to approach controlled experiment etc. But looking at how people coming forward with empirical evidence get stomped on it is clear what this activity here is all about. Self-appointed (hopefully) "gatekeepers" pampering status quo. What I find funny is that as soon as status quo changes to diametrically opposite same people happily pamper things they once did fight. There are signs that matters are going to substantially change so until then perhaps better exchange pleasantries and

[Mr. Scram]

There was more than one. In any case - if interested in knowledge one would conduct experiments, which are very simple in this matter. Share experimental results. Discuss improvements to approach controlled experiment etc. But looking at how people coming forward with empirical evidence get stomped on it is clear what this activity here is all about. Self-appointed (hopefully) "gatekeepers" pampering status quo. What I find funny is that as soon as status quo changes to diametrically opposite same people happily pamper things they once did fight. There are signs that matters are going to substantially change so until then perhaps better exchange pleasantries and

Why doesn't it surprise me that you're dismissive about people who change their opinion in the face of evidence?

Besides, playing the victim isn't going to help you. You haven't been able to deliver the goods, so people don't believe you. It's that simple. No crying or defaming people about how they're all against you is going to change this.

[Zero999]

There was more than one. In any case - if interested in knowledge one would conduct experiments, which are very simple in this matter. Share experimental results. Discuss improvements to approach controlled experiment etc. But looking at how people coming forward with empirical evidence get stomped on it is clear what this activity here is all about. Self-appointed (hopefully) "gatekeepers" pampering status quo. What I find funny is that as soon as status quo changes to diametrically opposite same people happily pamper things they once did fight. There are signs that matters are going to substantially change so until then perhaps better exchange pleasantries and

Why doesn't it surprise me that you're dismissive about people who change their opinion in the face of evidence?

Besides, playing the victim isn't going to help you. You haven't been able to deliver the goods, so people don't believe you. It's that simple. No crying or defaming people about how they're all against you is going to change this.

Three people have changed their opinion in favour, vs one who's changed their view against the idea that dowsing works, so  assuming there's no fraud, it seems like his debating style is very effective at convincing the undecided that dowsing works.

This proves that using scientific reasoning is not the most effective way of changing people's views.

[Lightages]

Three people have changed their opinion in favour, vs one who's changed their view against the idea that dowsing works, so  assuming there's no fraud, it seems like his debating style is very effective at convincing the undecided that dowsing works.

This proves that using scientific reasoning is not the most effective way of changing people's views.

I think it also shows, again, that when any doubt, reasonable or not, is thrown into a subject that people tend to go with belief rather than facts. This can be seen in the rise of flat earth idiocy and numerous conspiracy paranoia.  There seems to be a characteristic of humans that skews our thought process to believing in magic, unseen forces controlling us, and general woowoo.

It is sad that people have decided to change their mind in favor of dowsing being real. This is why we need to fight against the woowoo BS being spouted and keep vigilance.  The Deepak Chopra word salad and non-sequitur ramblings seem to have either confused people or have convinced them with the pseudoscience nonsense.

It is also a fact that when someone cries victim, people will tend to side with them. The false claims of being victimized is a usual tactic for those who wish to sway people to their way of "thinking". It is a shameful and low class tactic. Unfortunately it works.

[Mr. Scram]

Three people have changed their opinion in favour, vs one who's changed their view against the idea that dowsing works, so  assuming there's no fraud, it seems like his debating style is very effective at convincing the undecided that dowsing works.

This proves that using scientific reasoning is not the most effective way of changing people's views.

It might, though it may be required for people to be more educated about the scientific method.

[MrW0lf]

Three people have changed their opinion in favour, vs one who's changed their view against the idea that dowsing works, so  assuming there's no fraud, it seems like his debating style is very effective at convincing the undecided that dowsing works.

This proves that using scientific reasoning is not the most effective way of changing people's views.

So I see you are not pleased with your poll Also there is little error with your statement which I have fixed above. Do not remember you providing scientific data on the subject so must be referring to numerous research papers I linked. But glad you changed your mind and place scientific reasoning above exchange of opinions. As sign of appreciation I will provide further data in main topic. Teaser:

Without knowledge about RF electromagnetics on the part of investigators it is somewhat understandable that an attitude exists to deny human effects.

[Zero999]

Three people have changed their opinion in favour, vs one who's changed their view against the idea that dowsing works, so  assuming there's no fraud, it seems like his debating style is very effective at convincing the undecided that dowsing works.

This proves that using scientific reasoning is not the most effective way of changing people's views.

Clearly using scientific reasoning is not the most effective way of changing people's views, otherwise more people would have been converted from believing dowsing is real, to the fact that it's most likely to be bunk. Face it, the balance of scientific evidence, suggests dowsing is no better than chance. You're of course entitled to believe otherwise and can cherry pick a few snippets of information to support your belief that dowsing works better than chance, but it doesn't change anything.

So I see you are not pleased with your poll Also there is little error with your statement which I have fixed above. Do not remember you providing scientific data on the subject so must be referring to numerous research papers I linked. But glad you changed your mind and place scientific reasoning above exchange of opinions. As sign of appreciation I will provide further data in main topic. Teaser:

Without knowledge about RF electromagnetics on the part of investigators it is somewhat understandable that an attitude exists to deny human effects.

I'm neither pleased, nor displeased with the results of the poll. I find it interesting.

EDIT:
The purpose of this thread is still about people's opinions not science. If it were about the latter, then there would be no scope for debate.

[MrW0lf]

I'm neither pleased, nor displeased with the results of the poll. I find it interesting.

Hope you find this interesting also:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/scientist-finds-uk-water-companies-use-'magic'-to-find-leaks/msg1384162/#msg1384162

Edit:

EDIT:
The purpose of this thread is still about people's opinions not science. If it were about the latter, then there would be no scope for debate.

I do agree, as shown in other thread dowsing has been correlated with ideomotorics 300 years ago, correlation is commonly accepted in scientific community. Only recently is has become evident that there is also correlation with VHF radiation which fully excludes possibility of controlled experiment by unqualified personnel due to RF interference considerations.

[Mr. Scram]

Stop spouting your nonsense. You keep saying you've shown numerous things, yet you've shown us next to nothing. You only lie to yourself, but you can't lie to us. Now go foul up that other thread.

[Gyro]

Come on guys, it's Christmas! 

You already have a long thread for this argument, you've no reason for continuing to propagating it across another (especially when you are arguing in both at the same time). It's bad forum etiquette and you know it!

[Mr. Scram]

Come on guys, it's Christmas! 

You already have a long thread for this argument, you've no reason for continuing to propagating it across another (especially when you are arguing in both at the same time). It's bad forum etiquette and you know it!

You do realize you say pretty much exactly the same thing I was saying, right? Take the discussion to where it already was. We don't need another thread.