User Tag List

First 678

Results 71 to 80 of 80

  1. #71
    Senior Member JivinJeffJones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundowning View Post
    What a poor argument. Easily countered by the millions of products of technology that rely on successful scientific principles, effectively showing that the argument works both ways. You need to get a little more specific. wildcat's ball lightening example was better, but still falls short. Dowsing itself has to be evaluated, which you have completely failed to do if indeed you are arguing for it.
    wildcat's ball lightning example was specifically demonstrating that scientists can get it wrong largely through dismissing folklore as unscientific. Which was my point exactly moron.


    Quote Originally Posted by sundowning View Post
    Oh good grief. Shall I compile pretty much every post I've made in this thread detailing observations and reasons for why water dowsing is fake? I would gladly do it if you would actually bother to read it this time around.
    You can if you want, but I won't be rereading them. They weren't very convincing the first time round.

    Quote Originally Posted by sundowning View Post
    Besides, I already mentioned that my Dad is a dowser, and that my grandfather did it. I'm familiar with the concept and have seen dubious, anecdotal results that coincide with ideal probability. The most likely explanation is that there is no connection - I don't need to, and have not surfed any sites to tell me this. Unlike a lot of people, my skepticism is actually my own.
    Sounds to me like you haven't tested it much at all -- just decided that it's unlikely and sounds unscientific.

    Quote Originally Posted by sundowning View Post
    Anecdotal evidence is shit. Had you any critical thinking skills, you'd know that. I have my own anecdotal evidence, but I'm not going to introduce it because it's not going to fly - there's no point because a person can make up whatever they want on the spot.
    All scientific progress starts with investigating something which began as anecdotal evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by sundowning View Post
    Sloppy, sloppy thinking. Whether I am in school or out of it is irrelevent. I also know more than you and have better critical thinking skills - that's also irrelevent, but I feel like rubbing it in your face.
    I doubt that very much, but if it helps you sleep at night... Talk to me in 10ish years once you've grown up. Better yet: don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by sundowning View Post
    Haha, so I decided to do some research on JJJ to see what was up. Who knows? Maybe he was a fucking Phd teaching physics at Harvard or something and was ready to slay me.

    Turns out the guy is an INFP and spent his evening editing all his old posts.
    Get a life.

    Quote Originally Posted by sundowning View Post
    My apologies man, didn't mean to ruin your night, or detract your contribution to the board.
    As if you could.

  2. #72
    will make your day Carebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    I agree sundowningn isn't the most diplomatic, JJJ, but you still haven't really adressed his (and PTs) main objection: That dowsers have had loads of opportunity to prove it works, but have failed to or haven't dared to. Ball lightening couldn't be tested, because nobody claimed to be able to create them, but dowsing is another matter. All they had to prove was that dowsing works statistically, which would be an easy enough task if it actually worked.

    There's a million dollar waiting for any dowser who manages to show it works, ffs. Why wouldn't anyone prove it works if it's as effective as dowsers claim? It would be easy money.

  3. #73
    Senior Member JivinJeffJones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carebear View Post
    I agree sundowningn isn't the most diplomatic, JJJ, but you still haven't really adressed his (and PTs) main objection: That dowsers have had loads of opportunity to prove it works, but have failed to or haven't dared to. Ball lightening couldn't be tested, because nobody claimed to be able to create them, but dowsing is another matter. All they had to prove was that dowsing works statistically, which would be an easy enough task if it actually worked.

    There's a million dollar waiting for any dowser who manages to show it works, ffs. Why wouldn't anyone prove it works if it's as effective as dowsers claim? It would be easy money.
    My answer to that remains the same: I don't think many dowsers are aware of this fact. I doubt they are the sort to google water dowsing and discover there's a competition. I've never heard of it before, and I'm sure something like that would stick in my memory. I don't know how or where they advertise the competition. I don't know how they select candidates. I doubt that the average dowser has any idea that a competition of this sort exists. I do know that I will be doing some basics tests along the lines mentioned in some of the links -- on myself if I can learn to dowse and feel that its a genuine experience or on my dad if I can't do it. If these tests provide positive results then I will idly consider the competition.

  4. #74
    will make your day Carebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Ok, fair enough. Might be you're right on that one and all the dowsers who tried the test were frauds (though I still personally think they're all deluding themselves). I'm very eager to see how the blindfold tests of your dad turn out, and if you yourself will be able to do it (and hope you focus on not letting ideomotor influence your dowsing).

  5. #75
    Senior Member JivinJeffJones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carebear View Post
    Ok, fair enough. Might be you're right on that one and all the dowsers who tried the test were frauds (though I still personally think they're all deluding themselves). I'm very eager to see how the blindfold tests of your dad turn out, and if you yourself will be able to do it (and hope you focus on not letting ideomotor influence your dowsing).
    Definitely will be something prominently on my mind.

  6. #76
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Hello All,
    First I'd like to address one thing about the 1 million dollar prize for proving that dowsing works. The normal way dowsing works is to find water. Many others have expanded that meaning to include searching for whatever and the ones who made the rules for the prize have put it into that paradigm. That does not mean there is not proof that it does in fact work for finding water, specifically undergound water to be used as a well. I have seen too many times people who could do it. A good friend of mine did it when i built a new house 10 years ago. Now, as Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story.

    Two years ago my area went through a drought and my well survived. Some close to where I live had theirs dry up. My friend came in to each of those I know about and found them more water. Some of it was shallow (most wells around my area tend to be less than 30 feet deep) and some wound up having to drill deeper to get to the water, in some cases more than 200 feet. But in each case they found water exactly where my friend said it would be found, whether shallow or deep, and also in each case he was within 5 feet in depth of where it would be found.
    Now fast forward to this summer, our drought this year is considered extreme. Raleigh has less than 100 days of water left in their reservoirs. the water table is way way down and my well is just about empty. i know this because my shallow well pump is now cavitating and i opened up my well and measured it. So I called my friend. Unfortunately his joints are now such that he can't perfom it any longer, but he described the method of using two bent rods and told me I should try it for myself. i was pretty upset, no water, and the person I was hoping could help me couldn't, and he didn't know anyone else who could.
    Being the computer geek I am I decided it was time for research, and sure enough there were many sources who claimed the bent rods would work for anyone. Just as many said it was a hoax. I thought, what the heck, what have I got to lose. So I bent me two rods and set out to find more water on my property. I have a huge yard, 4 acres, and 10 years ago my friend had found water everywhere. I was finding nothing. Thought to myself "this is bunk, I can't do it". Just about that time I took a few more steps and the rods moved. Straight in a line. I backed up and they went apart. This time I leaned them almost 25 degrees in a down angle and stepped back across the previous point. While they didn't form a straight line they turned a good 75 degrees, enough that they were fighting gravity, and I wasn't turning them. I even had my wife come and try it. It blew her away. Over the next two days I mapped out the whole stream (and it is a stream or very long pocket of water). 1000 feet long to be exact, and at places 5 feet wide, and within 20 feet of the surface. Yesterday the guy who was going to drill my well showed up. I had marked where I wanted the well dug. He pulled out two rods and said "Let me make sure you aren't making a mistake". 5 minutes later he was setting up his rig right where I had marked. He hit water at 19 feet, and it was clear clean water. After he found the bottom he hooked up his camera and ran it down the hole. He ran it a full 100 feet in both directions and could not find an end point and it was on average 5 feet wide.

    Now you can dispute this all you wish, but I have proof by many witnesses that this all occured. And what's more I have water once again.

  7. #77
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yogi View Post
    First I'd like to address one thing about the 1 million dollar prize for proving that dowsing works. The normal way dowsing works is to find water. Many others have expanded that meaning to include searching for whatever and the ones who made the rules for the prize have put it into that paradigm.
    The prize is for water primarily, although there have been similar tests done with other objects. The million dollar one in particular uses water running through evenly spaced (and marked locations) pipes, where water is turned on and off. The goal is to detect the water higher than chance.

  8. #78
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    2

    Default

    I'm quite familiar with the rules and the premise of the contest. I'm just not sure that what water divining's purpose is meets what what the rules lay out. I've done quite a bit of research and no one can come up with a scientific reason why it works. That in and of itself does not mean that it doesn't work or that there isn't measurable data as to why it does. 100 years ago scientists could not envision how fission worked until Currie and Einstein came along, and even with that is was quite a few years later before they actually were able to produce a viable chain reaction. Also remember that the earth was flat until 500 years ago (actually one scientist figured it out 3000 years ago but that knowledge got lost). I've seen it work too many times and now I've actually done it myself. I'm a pretty smart cookie, have a very high IQ, studied nuclear physics, and now I'm pretty much a high powered computer geek. I haven't a clue why it works nor do I care, I just know it does. To those who scoff at the idea I challenge you to build your own devining rods out of a clothes hanger (I can give you directions on how to "build" it if need be) and take this challenge. Go out and walk around your yard just saying to yourself "show me water". You can even hold the rods at say a 10 or 15 degree down angle. If you have an open mind to it there is a very good chance you'll see the rods move towards each other, with no apparent reason for doing so. My bet is there is water below the point where you're standing (if you have a well or you know where the inlet pipe to your house runs walk near those).

  9. #79
    will make your day Carebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yogi View Post
    I'm quite familiar with the rules and the premise of the contest. I'm just not sure that what water divining's purpose is meets what what the rules lay out.
    How so? The purpose is finding running water. The rules and the premise of the contest is finding running water. Any better idea of how to scientifically measure the claims?

    I've done quite a bit of research and no one can come up with a scientific reason why it works. That in and of itself does not mean that it doesn't work or that there isn't measurable data as to why it does.
    The problem is that science hasn't really tried explaining it because it hasn't been proved THAT it works. As soon as anything is statistically proven to work, science tends to be all over it to explain why it works, no matter how supernatural the claim seems at first. But first it has to be proven that it works statistically. If you believe you can find water by dowsing, why not cash in the million dollars?
    I have arms for a fucking reaosn, so come hold me. Then we'll fuvk! Whoooooh! - GZA

  10. #80
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yogi View Post
    To those who scoff at the idea I challenge you to build your own devining rods out of a clothes hanger (I can give you directions on how to "build" it if need be) and take this challenge. Go out and walk around your yard just saying to yourself "show me water". You can even hold the rods at say a 10 or 15 degree down angle.
    At my parents home, this'd be easy. The water table is about 2 feet down - it's a "floating island". I could find water anywhere. Where I live now, it'd be nigh impossible. There is no self-contained water and I'm well above the water table.

    Therein lies the point. The test is to see if you can find water of a known quantity. It's only when the odds are known upfront, or can be discovered, that one can show that you are able to beat the odds.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 370
    Last Post: 02-07-2016, 09:54 PM
  2. What's the deal with this headlining news story (Casey Anthony)?
    By swordpath in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 137
    Last Post: 09-08-2012, 11:10 AM
  3. [MBTItm] What's the deal with this?
    By Lily flower in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-13-2010, 02:58 AM
  4. [NF] To NF males, what's the deal with this guy?
    By dee in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 01-26-2010, 01:50 PM
  5. What's the deal with Socionics?
    By alicia91 in forum Socionics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-02-2008, 08:56 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO