Paranormal Phenomena that is real

[JTEM]

There are some paranormal phenomena which are
real. Now I'm not claiming that their
supernatural explanations are proven real, but
that the phenomena themselves are real, are
observable.

Medical "Miracles," For one. They really do
occur. Then there's EVPs (Electronic Voice
Phenomenon). Again, the phenomenon itself is
absolutely real. People "really" do record
hours of white sound or dead air and then go
back and find a word, sound or even phrase
in there. And, finally, we have "Rods." These
"Rods" are the trickiest. Although all three
phenomena are real -- all three can be & often
are observed -- the "Rods" are the odd man out
because they do not lack a conventional
explanation. Still, the are claimed by the
paranormal school and they are indeed real
(really observed). To this I'd like to raise
one more, though it's on even shakier ground
than rods:

Dowsing.

Unlike "Rods," some people will claim that
Dowsing does not display any useful function
in need of explanation, let alone one that
qualifies it as "Paranormal." Others, on
the other hand, swear by it's authenticity. So,
what to do...

Part of the issue with dowsing is nailing down
precisely what it's supposed to be able to do.
Some claim it can find water, some claim it can
find Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) and there
was even this one guy (in Canada?) who said he
could track beings from another dimension with
dowsing rods...

The point?

Well, this peaked my interest and, good golly
gosh, I just happen to have a pair of dowsing
rods sitting next to me. Well, not really.
They're upstairs and I'm down here on the couch.
But that's not the point. The point is that I
do indeed have these dowsing rods and I'm
ready to experiment. But I need some help.

I need some help from some empirical, science
based people: How do I test these?

Oh. These are what my dowsing rods look like:

Loading Image...

I found this image online but mine are no
different...

So what am I testing?

Water? That would probably be beyond my
capacity to test. I mean, I can't exactly
drill here. This is a developed area, and
even if I had access to the equipment
nobody would let me use it...

So how can I test dowsing? Is there possible?

So what am I testing? The dowsing rod's
ability to do... to do... do what?

And how do I test that?

So far the only thing I've done with them
is test the claim that I could get them
to respond to my thoughts -- positive or
negative. That DID seem to work, but are
they responding to my "energies" or am
I simply subconsciously moving them?

What I'm saying is that was a terrible "Test,"
where the results could easily be determined
by the tester.

So what is a good test? Why?





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/107393192836

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 7 Jan 2015 04:47:46 -0800 (PST), the following

Post by JTEM
There are some paranormal phenomena which are
real. Now I'm not claiming that their
supernatural explanations are proven real, but
that the phenomena themselves are real, are
observable.
Medical "Miracles," For one. They really do
occur. Then there's EVPs (Electronic Voice
Phenomenon). Again, the phenomenon itself is
absolutely real. People "really" do record
hours of white sound or dead air and then go
back and find a word, sound or even phrase
in there. And, finally, we have "Rods." These
"Rods" are the trickiest. Although all three
phenomena are real -- all three can be & often
are observed -- the "Rods" are the odd man out
because they do not lack a conventional
explanation. Still, the are claimed by the
paranormal school and they are indeed real
(really observed). To this I'd like to raise
one more, though it's on even shakier ground
Dowsing.
Unlike "Rods," some people will claim that
Dowsing does not display any useful function
in need of explanation, let alone one that
qualifies it as "Paranormal." Others, on
the other hand, swear by it's authenticity. So,
what to do...
Part of the issue with dowsing is nailing down
precisely what it's supposed to be able to do.
Some claim it can find water, some claim it can
find Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) and there
was even this one guy (in Canada?) who said he
could track beings from another dimension with
dowsing rods...
The point?
Well, this peaked my interest and, good golly
gosh, I just happen to have a pair of dowsing
rods sitting next to me. Well, not really.
They're upstairs and I'm down here on the couch.
But that's not the point. The point is that I
do indeed have these dowsing rods and I'm
ready to experiment. But I need some help.
I need some help from some empirical, science
based people: How do I test these?
https://www.ghosthuntersequipment.com/store/secure/images/categories/406.jpg
I found this image online but mine are no
different...
So what am I testing?
Water? That would probably be beyond my
capacity to test. I mean, I can't exactly
drill here. This is a developed area, and
even if I had access to the equipment
nobody would let me use it...
So how can I test dowsing? Is there possible?
So what am I testing? The dowsing rod's
ability to do... to do... do what?
And how do I test that?
So far the only thing I've done with them
is test the claim that I could get them
to respond to my thoughts -- positive or
negative. That DID seem to work, but are
they responding to my "energies" or am
I simply subconsciously moving them?
What I'm saying is that was a terrible "Test,"
where the results could easily be determined
by the tester.
So what is a good test? Why?

I'd say it's a poor test because there doesn't seem to be
any way to evaluate it objectively or to determine the
actual cause. You might want to take a look here for some
actual tests which have been performed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing

Apparently in final analysis none showed any statistical
variance from chance.

[JTEM]

Post by Bob Casanova
I'd say it's a poor test because there doesn't seem to be
any way to evaluate it objectively or to determine the
actual cause.

But that's perfectly okay with me. As I made
clear, I'm really only interested in paranormal
claims where the effect is real, it's observable,
and not any causes.

I know what causes "Rods," for example and it's
perfectly ordinary. But the effect is real. You
can see the "Rods." They do exist. At least on
tape.

For most paranormal claims, the effect itself
is disputed. Or, should I say, completely
debunked. In the case of dowsing rods though,
I've seen both sides and it's simply not clear.

The "Evidence" debunking it simply isn't clear.
Even WHAT they are debunking isn't clear...

Post by Bob Casanova
You might want to take a look here for some
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing

I don't see any. Meta studies are useless
and "No better than chance" does not mean
what you think it means. What was the
supposed chance, exactly, and what did they
actually accomplish?

And what specifically what were the claims that
dowsing an do and what where they testing?

Interesting: I have heard of dowsing used to
find pipes, so determining whether or not a
pipe has water in it is rather odd, as the
dowsing should pretty much come up with the
same results whether the pipe is empty or not.

So how do I test dowsing myself?





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/107402421843

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 7 Jan 2015 11:49:10 -0800 (PST), the following

Post by JTEM

Post by Bob Casanova
I'd say it's a poor test because there doesn't seem to be
any way to evaluate it objectively or to determine the
actual cause.

But that's perfectly okay with me. As I made
clear, I'm really only interested in paranormal
claims where the effect is real, it's observable,
and not any causes.
I know what causes "Rods," for example and it's
perfectly ordinary. But the effect is real. You
can see the "Rods." They do exist. At least on
tape.
For most paranormal claims, the effect itself
is disputed. Or, should I say, completely
debunked. In the case of dowsing rods though,
I've seen both sides and it's simply not clear.
The "Evidence" debunking it simply isn't clear.
Even WHAT they are debunking isn't clear...

Post by Bob Casanova
You might want to take a look here for some
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing

I don't see any.

Scroll down to the "Scientific Appraisal" section, where two
examples of tests performed are discussed in some detail.

Post by JTEM
Meta studies are useless
and "No better than chance" does not mean
what you think it means. What was the
supposed chance, exactly, and what did they
actually accomplish?
And what specifically what were the claims that
dowsing an do and what where they testing?

There's a long list of references at the end of the article
(typical of Wiki articles dealing with science).

Post by JTEM
Interesting: I have heard of dowsing used to
find pipes, so determining whether or not a
pipe has water in it is rather odd, as the
dowsing should pretty much come up with the
same results whether the pipe is empty or not.

Not according to the claims of the dowsers, 30 of whom
agreed that the Randi test was appropriate.

Post by JTEM
So how do I test dowsing myself?

If you don't want to use any of the methods discussed I'm
afraid you'll have to come up with your own.

[JTEM]

Post by Bob Casanova
Scroll down to the "Scientific Appraisal" section, where two
examples of tests performed are discussed in some detail.

So you yourself have no position here, no opinion?
The best you can offer is a webpage authored by
usenet trolls?

Honestly, who did you think writes the wiki pages?
Nobel laureates?

What are they testing?

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by JTEM
Meta studies are useless
and "No better than chance" does not mean
what you think it means. What was the
supposed chance, exactly, and what did they
actually accomplish?
And what specifically what were the claims that
dowsing an do and what where they testing?

There's a long list of references at the end of the article
(typical of Wiki articles dealing with science).

Okay, what are they testing? Not generically, but
what specifically are they testing for?

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by JTEM
Interesting: I have heard of dowsing used to
find pipes, so determining whether or not a
pipe has water in it is rather odd, as the
dowsing should pretty much come up with the
same results whether the pipe is empty or not.

Not according to the claims of the dowsers

All of them? All the dowsers in the world? All
of them in America?

You're kind of proving my point here: You're
pointing towards "Studies" of unknown quality
testing an unrepresentative sampling for...

YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW!

Post by Bob Casanova
30 of whom
agreed that the Randi test was appropriate.

They have no choice. You do know that, right?
Randi doesn't compromise. And he regularly
changes the criteria. If someone says they
can do [A], Randi says he'll test [B] and
they have to agree, or go pound sand. There
is no third option.

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by JTEM
So how do I test dowsing myself?

If you don't want to use any of the methods discussed

I don't know of any method discussed that would be
applicable to me. As you clearly seem to think
otherwise, why don't you save us both a lot of time
and simply tell me which method you do think would
work here and is reasonable.

What is the minimum someone can do on their own?




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/107507688518

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 08:48:06 -0800 (PST), the following

Post by JTEM

Post by Bob Casanova
Scroll down to the "Scientific Appraisal" section, where two
examples of tests performed are discussed in some detail.

So you yourself have no position here, no opinion?
The best you can offer is a webpage authored by
usenet trolls?
Honestly, who did you think writes the wiki pages?
Nobel laureates?
What are they testing?

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by JTEM
Meta studies are useless
and "No better than chance" does not mean
what you think it means. What was the
supposed chance, exactly, and what did they
actually accomplish?
And what specifically what were the claims that
dowsing an do and what where they testing?

There's a long list of references at the end of the article
(typical of Wiki articles dealing with science).

Okay, what are they testing? Not generically, but
what specifically are they testing for?

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by JTEM
Interesting: I have heard of dowsing used to
find pipes, so determining whether or not a
pipe has water in it is rather odd, as the
dowsing should pretty much come up with the
same results whether the pipe is empty or not.

Not according to the claims of the dowsers

All of them? All the dowsers in the world? All
of them in America?
You're kind of proving my point here: You're
pointing towards "Studies" of unknown quality
testing an unrepresentative sampling for...
YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW!

Post by Bob Casanova
30 of whom
agreed that the Randi test was appropriate.

They have no choice. You do know that, right?
Randi doesn't compromise. And he regularly
changes the criteria. If someone says they
can do [A], Randi says he'll test [B] and
they have to agree, or go pound sand. There
is no third option.

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by JTEM
So how do I test dowsing myself?

If you don't want to use any of the methods discussed

I don't know of any method discussed that would be
applicable to me. As you clearly seem to think
otherwise, why don't you save us both a lot of time
and simply tell me which method you do think would
work here and is reasonable.
What is the minimum someone can do on their own?

I have no idea. Since you seem to be interested in argument
rather than looking at the references I listed, which seem
to me to answer your original questions (YMMV), and since I
have essentially no interest in the subject, I'll sign off.
I tried to provide some assistance, which was apparently a
mistake. HAND.

[JTEM]

Post by Bob Casanova
I have no idea. Since you seem to be interested in argument
rather than looking at the references I listed

That's your position?

Your "References" are vague at best. As for the tests
they describe, as per usual they seemed designed to
produce a negative result.

Take this one as a clear example that even a RandiBot
might grasp:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#Betz_study

What's it even testing? The ability to find water?
The ability to determine it's direction? Because I've
heard a lot of claims about dowsing, but never have
I heard that it can detect the direction of underground
water flow, only it's location...

And what the hell are the parameters here? Because if
someone could always detect subterranean water within,
I dunno, 10 feet of it's source, that's astoundingly
impressive. But they'd be guaranteed to fail THIS test
if they're only accurate within 10 feet...

So it's not at all clear even WHAT they are testing
here, and try as I might I can't even imagine any
reasonable parameters they might be operating under...

But you think it's a good cite, a good source of
information. I think you're bullshitting me. I think
you're just a nay-sayer and you're auto accepting this
"Cite" because the cite matches what you feel.

If I'm wrong, explain it. What is this test actually
testing? What reasonable parameters can you imagine
here?

Start with THAT, what you can imagine, what the
information presented would allow. Because never
mind listing reasonable parameters, as stated I
can't even image any! There's no room for them!

But you say otherwise. Go on, prove how reasonable,
how rational you are. Prove you're a thinker. Just
tell me what REASONABLE parameters you can imagine
from the information gleemed off of Wiki.

If you can't do that -- and I know I can't -- that
you can't claim that this Wiki page is any good. In
fact, you'd have to agree that it's utter rubbish
written by morons.

*eHugs*!



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/107627674833

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2015 14:22:08 -0800 (PST), the following

Post by JTEM

Post by Bob Casanova
I have no idea. Since you seem to be interested in argument
rather than looking at the references I listed

That's your position?

No. As I said, this is my position:

"...since I
have essentially no interest in the subject, I'll sign off.
I tried to provide some assistance, which was apparently a
mistake. HAND."

[JTEM]

You're illustrating my problem with Rani & company.
Skepticism is supposed to be about thinking. It's
supposed to be about NOT taking things on faith,
about asking all the questions, about examining
things critically. And instead "Skepticism" is
used as an excuse to NOT think, as we see here.

You recommended a cite without knowing even what
it's saying. On it's surface, unexamined, it came
across "Sciency" enough, and it seems to agree
with what you want to believe so that was good
enough for you. But if you really were a skeptic,
if you had asked even the most obvious, most
basic questions -- like "What were they testing,
specifically?" and "Are their parameters the
least bit reasonable?" -- you would have seen
how utterly devoid of useful information your
own "Cite" is.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/107648093998

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

On 2015-01-07, JTEM wrote:
...

Post by JTEM
Meta studies are useless

Really? Why do you say that?

Post by JTEM
and "No better than chance" does not mean
what you think it means. What was the
supposed chance, exactly, and what did they
actually accomplish?

What do you think it means?

Post by JTEM
So how do I test dowsing myself?

I have no idea, but if you are claiming that it is real, the burden of
proof is on you.

[JTEM]

Post by Chris F.A. Johnson

Post by JTEM
Meta studies are useless

Really? Why do you say that?

I like speaking the truth.

A "Meta Study" is when they take a number of
studies which show [A] and pretend that they
all really show [B].

Post by Chris F.A. Johnson

Post by JTEM
and "No better than chance" does not mean
what you think it means. What was the
supposed chance, exactly, and what did they
actually accomplish?

What do you think it means?

You're avoiding the question.

The issue here is that the parameters have not
been defined, there is no useful meaning here.

Post by Chris F.A. Johnson

Post by JTEM
So how do I test dowsing myself?

I have no idea

Then why bother responding? Go pretend to be
"Object" elsewhere.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/108222228428