Check your horoscope first. It will be about as accurate. Maybe more so.
Check your horoscope first. It will be about as accurate. Maybe more so.
I'm throwing the BS flag on this one, I'm in the Utility Locating business, and although I know dowsing does work for some people( I am one of them) there is no way a company would mark an electric line with that method, for starters it's against the law in every state. Secondly, I can't see any company risking the liability of a mis mark on dowsing.
I have been using (rather successfully I may add) dowsing rods to locate ice cream.
Ley Line detector. This would be more impressive if you know an address in GB. Otherwise just use the samples.
I said my jaw dropped when he marked them. And they could have come back later and located the lines another way but I did not see them do so. Well maybe this is more believable then. A patient of mine who ran the local water company and used dowsing in this job and has now retired , is assisting one of our local college professor,s in locating graves of Cherokees who died on the Trail of Tears in southern Illinois. The general site is known historically but all graves were unmarked and laid out haphazardly. Some of his located sites have been excavated and have shown a high rate of success.
Dowsing rods do work for locating both electrical and water lines, and underground streams of water. I too was not a believer when I first heard of the practice, but after seeing it done and having the rods work for me, I have changed my mind about dowsing.
Ley lines I have never heard of.
Last edited by AR Beekeeper; 07-15-2013 at 06:34 PM.
Some of you guys may want to go to Vegas! They have lots of cool magic shows!
Anyone who thinks they can prove they can dowse or detect their ley lines should should immediately go collect their $1 million. If anyone collects on the Randi prize, I will be the first to congratulate them. Hell, I'll add $100 to it.
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/scie...nking-dowsing/
Again, I repeat my plea that started this thread: isn't there enough guesswork and superstition in this hobby without this nonsense?
I have a problem with them making claims about something they gathered no data on. such as the chance of guessing. they did not test these people for guessing. it indicates there conclusions are biased and corrupt that they even speak of random chance when they did nothing to measure the accuracy of random chance. Why conduct a test of dowsing to then speak on what they did not test? Random chance woudl be 1 in 6. the dowsers achieve 2 in 6. twice as accurate as guessing. Such an alteration of the odds would put mega million dollar casinos out of business. Dowsing rods would be illegal in Vegas. Considered cheating.
Significant Minority vs Insignificant Majority, 20% of causes produce 80% of the effects.
I only watched the video(s) Randi is a joke that simply refuses to pay up.
The other they show them conducting a test to measure the accuracy of dowsing. then compare those results to methods they did not bother to measure. Basically comparing actual results to assumptions. Then they try to skew even those assumed results in their favor.
Sorry if you want to use random guessing in the study. measure random guessing. Otherwise all you know is that dowsing resulted in 2 out of 6 successful attempts at locating. random guessing woudl be 1 in 6. But you would have to conduct hundreds of thousands of tests to measure that int eh first place. Otherwise you are blatantly ignore in fundamentals of odds.
If I rill a dice once and get a 6 I can claim I roll 6's 100% of the time. now do it 100,000 times. extreme example but does show how the numbers are the only way to truly reveal the actual odds.
Significant Minority vs Insignificant Majority, 20% of causes produce 80% of the effects.
You don't know they didn't measure "random guessing." You watched a short clip on a study that a guy did, in the middle of him doing it. You didn't read the study. It's best not to criticize someone's methods or practices until you actually read their results, including the description of their method.
For all you know he also had a control group that didn't have dowsing rods and guessed at random. Point is, you don't know.
Ok their double blind study consisted of finding a half liter of bottle water stuck in a trash can?
Last edited by Harley Craig; 07-19-2013 at 07:49 AM.
I don't intend to get in this discussion of Ley Lines, however, there seemes to be a misconception of control groups, statistics and how many times you must duplicate a result for confidence in the study, or how many attempts you must measure to be confident of the results.
For those schooled in statistical analysis, you know you do not need large numbers of studies, or large sample sizes, to arrive at an accurately predictable conclusion. You can use very small sample sizes, and depending on the deviation from the norm you are willing to accept, and level of confidence you need in the results, you can accurately predict probilities. To determine the number of times a pair of aces will be drawn from a shuffled deck, you don't need to draw but precious few times to accurately predict how many times it will occur from now on.
cchoganjr
"A 1948 study tested 58 dowsers' ability to detect water. None of them was more reliable than chance.[16] A 1979 review examined many controlled studies of dowsing for water, and found that none of them showed better than chance results.[5] A 2006 study of grave dowsing in Iowa reviewed 14 published studies and determined that none of them correctly predicted the location of human burials, and simple scientific experiments demonstrated the fundamental principles commonly used to explain grave dowsing were incorrect.[17]
More recently a study[18] was undertaken in Kassel, Germany, under the direction of the Gesellschaft zur Wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften (GWUP) [Society for the Scientific Investigation of the Parasciences]. The three-day test of some 30 dowsers involved plastic pipes through which water flow could be controlled and directed. The pipes were buried 50 centimeters under a level field, the position of each marked on the surface with a colored strip. The dowsers had to tell whether water was running through each pipe. All the dowsers signed a statement agreeing this was a fair test of their abilities and that they expected a 100 percent success rate. However, the results were no better than chance."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing
C'mon, don't let facts and statistics get in the way of superstition and magic.
The test did not ask the dowsers to calculate the odds. it asked them to demonstrate them.
Can you demonstrate that the odds are 1 in 6 or 5 to 1 that you will roll any given number on a dice by just rolling the dice 6 times? how about 12? No? how about 60? still no? give it a try and see if you get exactly 10 ones rolled in 60 attempts. it is the chance after all. The reason this happens is that there is a basic and universal misunderstanding of chance. and that is that when you roll the dice for the first time you have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a one. so what are your chances on the second roll? exactly the same. your chance never gets better, and they are not good.
In this study they also had a 1 in 6 chance of finding the container with the water. Random guessing should have at best shown they where correct only once. and often not even that many times. yet at one point it is stated that most found the water twice out of 6 attempts. That is not a close to guessing result. I realize it woudl sound like it is to most people. but then most people can't do math and do not even begin to understand things like odds or chance and how much even a small variation from that is significant.
So in all to actually demonstrate that rolling a certain number on a dice is in fact a 1 in 6 chance. you would have to roll the dice hundreds or even thousands of times. To calculate it you don't need a dice at all. It has 6 sides. each side has a different number so the chance is in fact 1 in 6 or 17% for rolling any one number. the dowsers where correct on average 33% of the time. If they had just been guessing they would have been correct only 17% of the time.
Significant Minority vs Insignificant Majority, 20% of causes produce 80% of the effects.
This is all in fun, so PLEASE don't get upset or feel that I am challenging your manhood. The misconception here, is how to compute probalilities and be able to predict a given event.
Surely you don't believe that Las Vegas rolls the dice, thousands, and hundreds of thousands of times, or pulls aces out of a deck, thousands of times, in order to figure the probability of an event occuring. Of course not. They use the law of probabilities, deviation from a norm, and level of confidence, to predict what will occur in any series of events. Then the payout on gambling is based on these results. Sometimes Las Vegas is wrong, and people win BIG. Most often they are correct, and if you continue to play, using their odds, you will lose. Conclusion here..... Win a good payoff early in the game, and quit playing. Same with dowsing, and random chance. You will not get the same results every time. We all know that the probability of winning the lottery is roughly 14 million to one. But, that one win, can occur on the first drawing, or on the last drawing, anywhere in between, or not at all. But, we can calculate your probability of winning, and advise you as to that probability. You may play 100 million times, and still not win, or, you could win on your first try. That is probabilities. Same with dowsing. You may find the object 33% of the time in one experiment, and then find the object 0 % in another, and then find it 100% in another. This tells you there is a probability, and it ranges from 0% to 100% and will change with each set of circumstances. This is really true when humans, with preconceived notions, or bias, are conducting the experiment
It is easy to compute random chance for any event. Flip a coin, (assuming the coin is perfectly balanced) it is 50-50 because you have two sides. In dice you have 2 dice. Now you have thousands of combinations and permutations from two dice and six sides each.
In fact, Daniel, you shot your own conclusion down, when you stated you would need to roll a dice hundreds or even thousands of time to predict or demonstrate a certain chance, then, in the next sentence you stated the probability of rolling a given number, based on the fact that a dice has 6 sides.
As I said, I don't have any experience in dowsing, so I will stay out of this discussion. But, here we are talking about probabilities of an event occuring, and comparing it to random chance. To do this accurately, we need to know the laws of probabilities, combinations and permutations, deviation from a norm, and level of confidence. Then you can predict. Will it be 100% accurate every time. No!!! That's why it is called predictions. Same with dowsing. Dowsing is not accurate 100% of the time, but, true predictions do occur. To evaluate, you can compare it to random chance, but that will not remain constant over a given number of events, states and stages.
And, Daniel Y. .., I highly respect you, your posts, and your knowledge. I know nothing about dowsing, and even less about ley lines, .So.. I will leave that to you and others who have that knowledge.
cchoganjr
Last edited by Cleo C. Hogan Jr; 07-20-2013 at 12:18 PM. Reason: spelling and correct a sentence.
Ley lines.
Yes, the magnetic ley lines of the Earth. Many birds, fish, and insects have a small amount of magnetite in their brains that reacts to the magnetic ley lines of the Earth and allow them to migrate long distances without getting lost.
Tornadoes also generate their own static electric field which has a magnetic component....and the tornado follows the magnetic ley
lines of the Earth from southwest to northeast in the northern hemisphere.
Google magnetic ley lines and read all about it.
WestTexasLawrence
Bookmarks