There’s a $100,000 prize waiting for you if you can read minds, see the future or talk to the dead. You just have to prove it.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-04/australian-skeptics-paranormal-proof-prize-still-unclaimed/8852060
roughbarked said:
There’s a $100,000 prize waiting for you if you can read minds, see the future or talk to the dead. You just have to prove it.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-04/australian-skeptics-paranormal-proof-prize-still-unclaimed/8852060
There’s plenty of people who could claim it, but they are put off because they have to take Tim Minchin’s piano, left leg, and wife in the package as well:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
There’s a $100,000 prize waiting for you if you can read minds, see the future or talk to the dead. You just have to prove it.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-04/australian-skeptics-paranormal-proof-prize-still-unclaimed/8852060
There’s plenty of people who could claim it, but they are put off because they have to take Tim Minchin’s piano, left leg, and wife in the package as well:
Not sure what I’d do with his left leg. Could probably handle the rest.
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
There’s a $100,000 prize waiting for you if you can read minds, see the future or talk to the dead. You just have to prove it.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-04/australian-skeptics-paranormal-proof-prize-still-unclaimed/8852060
There’s plenty of people who could claim it, but they are put off because they have to take Tim Minchin’s piano, left leg, and wife in the package as well:
Not sure what I’d do with his left leg. Could probably handle the rest.
Morning all.
>Not sure what I’d do with his left leg
Tell him to hop it.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
There’s a $100,000 prize waiting for you if you can read minds, see the future or talk to the dead. You just have to prove it.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-04/australian-skeptics-paranormal-proof-prize-still-unclaimed/8852060
There’s plenty of people who could claim it, but they are put off because they have to take Tim Minchin’s piano, left leg, and wife in the package as well:
Thank you. That made me smile (again) and it’s a bit miserable here with the coughing and stuff. And Mr buffy has been dreaming his PTSD dreams again. I suspect it’s the mild fever that goes with this cold. Because I had irrational dreams – that I can’t remember – last night too.
buffy said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
There’s a $100,000 prize waiting for you if you can read minds, see the future or talk to the dead. You just have to prove it.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-04/australian-skeptics-paranormal-proof-prize-still-unclaimed/8852060
There’s plenty of people who could claim it, but they are put off because they have to take Tim Minchin’s piano, left leg, and wife in the package as well:
Thank you. That made me smile (again) and it’s a bit miserable here with the coughing and stuff. And Mr buffy has been dreaming his PTSD dreams again. I suspect it’s the mild fever that goes with this cold. Because I had irrational dreams – that I can’t remember – last night too.
We’ve got a sniffling mr kii. It looks like nasty allergies, I’ve got him drugged up.
I’m sitting here not sniffling, just a little bit of an itchy nose. It’s a bloody fucking (pardon me, sibeen) miracle.
Minchin makes me smile, too.
My best to mr buffy. Does he like vikings? Maybe he needs to see a cat in a viking beanie?
roughbarked said:
There’s a $100,000 prize waiting for you if you can read minds, see the future or talk to the dead. You just have to prove it.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-04/australian-skeptics-paranormal-proof-prize-still-unclaimed/8852060
Prizes like that tend to be counterproductive. They publicise falsehoods, better not to feed the trolls.
Back last century a similar prize was offered to anyone who could prove that the world was not flat. Wallace (yes the Wallace) claimed the prize but the money was not paid to him. Wallace went bankrupt suing the organisers of the prize for the money.
If you read through the early Scientific American magazines, they are chock full of articles about claims of paranormal activity – nearly one such claim in every issue. In every case, the claim was debunked.
I wish ectoplasm and telekinesis were real.
buffy said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
There’s a $100,000 prize waiting for you if you can read minds, see the future or talk to the dead. You just have to prove it.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-04/australian-skeptics-paranormal-proof-prize-still-unclaimed/8852060
There’s plenty of people who could claim it, but they are put off because they have to take Tim Minchin’s piano, left leg, and wife in the package as well:
Thank you. That made me smile (again) and it’s a bit miserable here with the coughing and stuff. And Mr buffy has been dreaming his PTSD dreams again. I suspect it’s the mild fever that goes with this cold. Because I had irrational dreams – that I can’t remember – last night too.
I’ve used an extract from that video in a conference presentation on the subject of limit state design methods :).
> in a conference presentation on the subject of limit state design methods
I used to love limit state design methods. My main Uni project in 1981 was to update a truss element computer program to change it to limit state design. :-)
mollwollfumble said:
> in a conference presentation on the subject of limit state design methodsI used to love limit state design methods. My main Uni project in 1981 was to update a truss element computer program to change it to limit state design. :-)
You used to?
So your love has faded?
The Rev Dodgson said:
mollwollfumble said:
> in a conference presentation on the subject of limit state design methodsI used to love limit state design methods. My main Uni project in 1981 was to update a truss element computer program to change it to limit state design. :-)
You used to?
So your love has faded?
Write an emo song about it, perhaps suggest it to Taylor Swift
Cymek said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
mollwollfumble said:
> in a conference presentation on the subject of limit state design methodsI used to love limit state design methods. My main Uni project in 1981 was to update a truss element computer program to change it to limit state design. :-)
You used to?
So your love has faded?
Write an emo song about it, perhaps suggest it to Taylor Swift
not to be confused with an emU song…. that’s be John Williamson, not Taylor Swift…
I became a Water Dowser believer at an early age
when I watched my father use 2 bent wires to find
& follow a pipeline from the city water supply across
our property in order to install a drinking fountain.
Didn’t James Randi put this crap to bed about 30 years ago?
( I wish I had Uri Gellers powers, so many spoons requiring bending)
Still no-one has been able to claim the money.
https://www.skeptics.com.au/resources/articles/australian-skeptics-divining-test/
My point exactly,
And the local one is still available:
https://www.skeptics.com.au/features/prize/
And recently refused:
https://www.skeptics.com.au/2017/09/11/top-clairvoyant-refuses-skeptics-100000-challenge/
buffy said:
https://www.skeptics.com.au/resources/articles/australian-skeptics-divining-test/
That is the most ridiculous test to determine water diving as you will ever find. If this is the best tests the skeptics can come up with then they should be ashamed to think they are being remotely scientific.
buffy said:
And recently refused:
https://www.skeptics.com.au/2017/09/11/top-clairvoyant-refuses-skeptics-100000-challenge/
She probably saw that she would fail.
PermeateFree said:
buffy said:https://www.skeptics.com.au/resources/articles/australian-skeptics-divining-test/
That is the most ridiculous test to determine water diving as you will ever find. If this is the best tests the skeptics can come up with then they should be ashamed to think they are being remotely scientific.
The tests are devised between the Skeptics and the challenger. Both have to agree that the test is a fair test of their skills.
PermeateFree said:
buffy said:https://www.skeptics.com.au/resources/articles/australian-skeptics-divining-test/
That is the most ridiculous test to determine water diving as you will ever find. If this is the best tests the skeptics can come up with then they should be ashamed to think they are being remotely scientific.
yeah cos we all know water diving works. also the diviners actually agree on the rules beforehand.
ChrispenEvan said:
PermeateFree said:
buffy said:https://www.skeptics.com.au/resources/articles/australian-skeptics-divining-test/
That is the most ridiculous test to determine water diving as you will ever find. If this is the best tests the skeptics can come up with then they should be ashamed to think they are being remotely scientific.
yeah cos we all know water diving works. also the diviners actually agree on the rules beforehand.
missed an in in there.
sibeen said:
buffy said:And recently refused:
https://www.skeptics.com.au/2017/09/11/top-clairvoyant-refuses-skeptics-100000-challenge/
She probably saw that she would fail.
i acknowledge this joke.
ChrispenEvan said:
sibeen said:
buffy said:And recently refused:
https://www.skeptics.com.au/2017/09/11/top-clairvoyant-refuses-skeptics-100000-challenge/
She probably saw that she would fail.
i acknowledge this joke.
wow… let it be known that Boris officially acknowledges a Shebs joke….
Arts said:
ChrispenEvan said:
sibeen said:She probably saw that she would fail.
i acknowledge this joke.
wow… let it be known that Boris officially acknowledges a Shebs joke….
i am being nice. sibeen has had a rough trot lately what with the parties he has had to endure.
:-)
ChrispenEvan said:
Arts said:
ChrispenEvan said:i acknowledge this joke.
wow… let it be known that Boris officially acknowledges a Shebs joke….
i am being nice. sibeen has had a rough trot lately what with the parties he has had to endure.
:-)
The 14 year old party is still the talk of the town…the little shits.
buffy said:
PermeateFree said:
buffy said:https://www.skeptics.com.au/resources/articles/australian-skeptics-divining-test/
That is the most ridiculous test to determine water diving as you will ever find. If this is the best tests the skeptics can come up with then they should be ashamed to think they are being remotely scientific.
The tests are devised between the Skeptics and the challenger. Both have to agree that the test is a fair test of their skills.
Well as there is considerable variance between diviners themselves as to what they can or cannot do, or even if they can do anything at all. Yes there are even skeptic amongst diviners too. BUT they all agree there is something going on that cannot be easily explained. Now if you think science has the answer for everything, then you have a lot to learn about science.
ChrispenEvan said:
ChrispenEvan said:
PermeateFree said:That is the most ridiculous test to determine water diving as you will ever find. If this is the best tests the skeptics can come up with then they should be ashamed to think they are being remotely scientific.
yeah cos we all know water diving works. also the diviners actually agree on the rules beforehand.
missed an in in there.
As usual Boris you miss a great deal, but assume a great deal.
PermeateFree said:
buffy said:
PermeateFree said:That is the most ridiculous test to determine water diving as you will ever find. If this is the best tests the skeptics can come up with then they should be ashamed to think they are being remotely scientific.
The tests are devised between the Skeptics and the challenger. Both have to agree that the test is a fair test of their skills.
Well as there is considerable variance between diviners themselves as to what they can or cannot do, or even if they can do anything at all. Yes there are even skeptic amongst diviners too. BUT they all agree there is something going on that cannot be easily explained. Now if you think science has the answer for everything, then you have a lot to learn about science.
LOL. diviners have no special powers to see water underground.
PermeateFree said:
ChrispenEvan said:
ChrispenEvan said:yeah cos we all know water diving works. also the diviners actually agree on the rules beforehand.
missed an in in there.
As usual Boris you miss a great deal, but assume a great deal.
and as usual you are a fucking idiot.
ChrispenEvan said:
PermeateFree said:
buffy said:The tests are devised between the Skeptics and the challenger. Both have to agree that the test is a fair test of their skills.
Well as there is considerable variance between diviners themselves as to what they can or cannot do, or even if they can do anything at all. Yes there are even skeptic amongst diviners too. BUT they all agree there is something going on that cannot be easily explained. Now if you think science has the answer for everything, then you have a lot to learn about science.
LOL. diviners have no special powers to see water underground.
Quite correct Boris, they don’t see underground water, nor claim to see it. Tell me, have ever tried water diving Boris, or been involved with someone who has?
PermeateFree said:
ChrispenEvan said:
PermeateFree said:Well as there is considerable variance between diviners themselves as to what they can or cannot do, or even if they can do anything at all. Yes there are even skeptic amongst diviners too. BUT they all agree there is something going on that cannot be easily explained. Now if you think science has the answer for everything, then you have a lot to learn about science.
LOL. diviners have no special powers to see water underground.
Quite correct Boris, they don’t see underground water, nor claim to see it. Tell me, have ever tried water diving Boris, or been involved with someone who has?
i have come across them, why?
ChrispenEvan said:
PermeateFree said:
ChrispenEvan said:missed an in in there.
As usual Boris you miss a great deal, but assume a great deal.
and as usual you are a fucking idiot.
No Boris you are the armchair expert who jumps to conclusions based on either no evidence, or scant evidence.
PermeateFree said:
ChrispenEvan said:
PermeateFree said:As usual Boris you miss a great deal, but assume a great deal.
and as usual you are a fucking idiot.
No Boris you are the armchair expert who jumps to conclusions based on either no evidence, or scant evidence.
and yet i show you up as being wrong time and time again.
ChrispenEvan said:
PermeateFree said:
ChrispenEvan said:LOL. diviners have no special powers to see water underground.
Quite correct Boris, they don’t see underground water, nor claim to see it. Tell me, have ever tried water diving Boris, or been involved with someone who has?
i have come across them, why?
You can encounter things or you can know them in greater detail, so exactly what experience have had?
ChrispenEvan said:
PermeateFree said:
ChrispenEvan said:and as usual you are a fucking idiot.
No Boris you are the armchair expert who jumps to conclusions based on either no evidence, or scant evidence.
and yet i show you up as being wrong time and time again.
and i am not the only one here to do so.
PermeateFree said:
ChrispenEvan said:
PermeateFree said:Quite correct Boris, they don’t see underground water, nor claim to see it. Tell me, have ever tried water diving Boris, or been involved with someone who has?
i have come across them, why?
You can encounter things or you can know them in greater detail, so exactly what experience have had?
you tell us how they detect water underground seeing as you know all about it.
ChrispenEvan said:
PermeateFree said:
ChrispenEvan said:and as usual you are a fucking idiot.
No Boris you are the armchair expert who jumps to conclusions based on either no evidence, or scant evidence.
and yet i show you up as being wrong time and time again.
That is your stupid logic. Just because YOU say something, it does not make it correct.
ChrispenEvan said:
ChrispenEvan said:
PermeateFree said:No Boris you are the armchair expert who jumps to conclusions based on either no evidence, or scant evidence.
and yet i show you up as being wrong time and time again.
and i am not the only one here to do so.
That might be saying more about you than me.
PermeateFree said:
ChrispenEvan said:
PermeateFree said:No Boris you are the armchair expert who jumps to conclusions based on either no evidence, or scant evidence.
and yet i show you up as being wrong time and time again.
That is your stupid logic. Just because YOU say something, it does not make it correct.
meteorite craters? bridge over the heads in Vic? both times you went off on your little dreamscape.
maybe i needed to put “see” in quotes so you didn’t take it literally.
ChrispenEvan said:
PermeateFree said:
ChrispenEvan said:i have come across them, why?
You can encounter things or you can know them in greater detail, so exactly what experience have had?
you tell us how they detect water underground seeing as you know all about it.
I draw your attention to an earlier post of mine of which probably did not read, as you think you already know.
>>Well as there is considerable variance between diviners themselves as to what they can or cannot do, or even if they can do anything at all. Yes there are even skeptic amongst diviners too. BUT they all agree there is something going on that cannot be easily explained. Now if you think science has the answer for everything, then you have a lot to learn about science.<<
An anecdote.
I’m somewhat fey, it’s the part Irish in me.
I dreamt the 1975 Stradbroke handicap the night before the race.
I went to the Manly Hotel next day to watch it, I rewatched the dream, from start to finish.
I only had a few shackles on the winner for the sake of the dream but backed the horse that I thought would win but it didn’t run a place.
I had a similar dream when Think Big won one of his Melbourne Cups.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
PermeateFree said:
ChrispenEvan said:
PermeateFree said:You can encounter things or you can know them in greater detail, so exactly what experience have had?
you tell us how they detect water underground seeing as you know all about it.
I draw your attention to an earlier post of mine of which probably did not read, as you think you already know.
>>Well as there is considerable variance between diviners themselves as to what they can or cannot do, or even if they can do anything at all. Yes there are even skeptic amongst diviners too. BUT they all agree there is something going on that cannot be easily explained. Now if you think science has the answer for everything, then you have a lot to learn about science.<<
saw that. doesn’t say anything. anyway i believe this conversation has been had before about diviners and that you are a “believer”.
ChrispenEvan said:
PermeateFree said:
ChrispenEvan said:and yet i show you up as being wrong time and time again.
That is your stupid logic. Just because YOU say something, it does not make it correct.
meteorite craters? bridge over the heads in Vic? both times you went off on your little dreamscape.
See you are doing it again, you set yourself up as an armchair expert and despite the fact that you have no experience at ALL, but will run off at the mouth because YOU think you know all. Sorry Boris, but that attitude just sets you up as a fool.
Peak Warming Man said:
An anecdote.
I’m somewhat fey, it’s the part Irish in me.
I dreamt the 1975 Stradbroke handicap the night before the race.
I went to the Manly Hotel next day to watch it, I rewatched the dream, from start to finish.
I only had a few shackles on the winner for the sake of the dream but backed the horse that I thought would win but it didn’t run a place.
I had a similar dream when Think Big won one of his Melbourne Cups.There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
shekels.
gotta love coincidences.
ChrispenEvan said:
maybe i needed to put “see” in quotes so you didn’t take it literally.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
ChrispenEvan said:
PermeateFree said:
ChrispenEvan said:you tell us how they detect water underground seeing as you know all about it.
I draw your attention to an earlier post of mine of which probably did not read, as you think you already know.
>>Well as there is considerable variance between diviners themselves as to what they can or cannot do, or even if they can do anything at all. Yes there are even skeptic amongst diviners too. BUT they all agree there is something going on that cannot be easily explained. Now if you think science has the answer for everything, then you have a lot to learn about science.<<
saw that. doesn’t say anything. anyway i believe this conversation has been had before about diviners and that you are a “believer”.
No I am not a believer, but have used the technique over a considerable period of time, as have many early miners.
ChrispenEvan said:
Peak Warming Man said:
An anecdote.
I’m somewhat fey, it’s the part Irish in me.
I dreamt the 1975 Stradbroke handicap the night before the race.
I went to the Manly Hotel next day to watch it, I rewatched the dream, from start to finish.
I only had a few shackles on the winner for the sake of the dream but backed the horse that I thought would win but it didn’t run a place.
I had a similar dream when Think Big won one of his Melbourne Cups.There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.shekels.
gotta love coincidences.
I typed shekles but the internet didn’t like it so it changed it for me.
I should know by now to always trust you gut and the flora and fauna living there.
Peak Warming Man said:
An anecdote.
I’m somewhat fey, it’s the part Irish in me.
I dreamt the 1975 Stradbroke handicap the night before the race.
I went to the Manly Hotel next day to watch it, I rewatched the dream, from start to finish.
I only had a few shackles on the winner for the sake of the dream but backed the horse that I thought would win but it didn’t run a place.
I had a similar dream when Think Big won one of his Melbourne Cups.There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
selective bias
I really do really get tired of having armchair experts with absolutely no experience, claiming to be more knowledgeable than those that do. Science does not know everything as any scientist will tell you, which mean things should not be dismissed unless you have good evidence to the contrary, of which that silly skeptic test is just that, silly with no hope of gaining anything of scientific value.
I did not divine for water, but used the technique to gain information about things underground that I could not see. I tested my results by viewing open-cut mines where the substrates were visible and I paid people to drill many holes to again test what I thought was there. However, I was never sure exactly what I was detecting, whether silica, water, gypsum, etc., but what I did detect were slides and the direction they were facing and hydro-thermal activity, which was enough to give relevant information on what had happened in the past. Divining to me was a tool, not the only one, but one I could cover a fair amount of ground and get some idea of the influences that had impacted upon it.
the thing about science is that it needs to be replicable using the same conditions. That’s what makes science science. So if you believe something is real, then you need to find the gap in the literature and then do the experiments with a guide to allow others to also do the experiments and find the same results. That’s what peer reviewing is. It’s the best thing we have to prove anything or disprove anything.
Of course, anything is a theory, proven or otherwise, there to be disproven, by anyone willing to follow the same protocols.
Science
If you can’t measure it – it doesnt exist
wookiemeister said:
ScienceIf you can’t measure it – it doesnt exist
How can you devise a test for all of these persons?
Don’t they suggest that they have abilities in different areas?
monkey skipper said:
wookiemeister said:
ScienceIf you can’t measure it – it doesnt exist
How can you devise a test for all of these persons?
Don’t they suggest that they have abilities in different areas?
The sceptics set up each test in consultation with ‘the gifted’. Both need to agree to the conditions for the test to go ahead.
sibeen said:
monkey skipper said:
wookiemeister said:
ScienceIf you can’t measure it – it doesnt exist
How can you devise a test for all of these persons?
Don’t they suggest that they have abilities in different areas?
The sceptics set up each test in consultation with ‘the gifted’. Both need to agree to the conditions for the test to go ahead.
I think studying the reactions of the olfactory system and the brain responses to this group and those people who experience symptoms of PSTD could be beneficial to better understandings of fear/ flight mechanisms of the brain and the possibility that there is a connection between detecting fear or oddities in others and the brain detecting this but not limited to fear , this could also be a violent person that is known for their behaviors but unknown to the subject.
Put lots of these people in the chair next to them for the same set amount of time and then a just one non-offender and see if thee brain reacts to these sudden changes or not but in a consistent way.
You would need safety protocols in place of course.
it would be important for the test subject not to see the face of the persons at all or any body language. There would have to be a visual barrier but thin enough to still smell the other person or close enough for the sense of smell to function detectably for this experiment.
You would need an EEG for this cognitive test and let the person express their immediate responses to each person that is seated and press a button when they feel the response.
for example:
the first person enters the room and is seated the test room.
The person being tested must then state what their immediate response is emotionally , eg, reppulsion, attraction , neutral or whatever. No words are to be spoken to the person being tested just analyse their results.
wookiemeister said:
ScienceIf you can’t measure it – it doesnt exist
some comfort in that, of others secret thoughts, and ones own.
transition said:
wookiemeister said:
ScienceIf you can’t measure it – it doesnt exist
some comfort in that, of others secret thoughts, and ones own.
on that subject, what’s the purpose of secret thoughts, and is consciousness possible without them, or the possibility
Arts said:
the thing about science is that it needs to be replicable using the same conditions. That’s what makes science science. So if you believe something is real, then you need to find the gap in the literature and then do the experiments with a guide to allow others to also do the experiments and find the same results. That’s what peer reviewing is. It’s the best thing we have to prove anything or disprove anything.Of course, anything is a theory, proven or otherwise, there to be disproven, by anyone willing to follow the same protocols.
I don’t think there has been any research done on divining, simply because it is so difficult to organise and to prove or disprove. As I have said before nobody is claiming divining is a science, but there is something going on there and it is not something to be dismissed out of hand, especially by those with no actual experience and therefore have no idea of what might be possible.
sibeen said:
monkey skipper said:
wookiemeister said:
ScienceIf you can’t measure it – it doesnt exist
How can you devise a test for all of these persons?
Don’t they suggest that they have abilities in different areas?
The sceptics set up each test in consultation with ‘the gifted’. Both need to agree to the conditions for the test to go ahead.
The gifted with the paranormal are often paranormal themselves and/or think they can do far more than they are capable. The skeptic test was not a true test, as you generally do not go around looking for bits of pipe filled with water. There is no consensus with diviners as to what they are actually divining, some will say one thing, whilst another something else, so what needs to be done is to discover this first anomaly, which can then lead to actual scientific tests.
PermeateFree said:
sibeen said:
monkey skipper said:How can you devise a test for all of these persons?
Don’t they suggest that they have abilities in different areas?
The sceptics set up each test in consultation with ‘the gifted’. Both need to agree to the conditions for the test to go ahead.
The gifted with the paranormal are often paranormal themselves and/or think they can do far more than they are capable. The skeptic test was not a true test, as you generally do not go around looking for bits of pipe filled with water. There is no consensus with diviners as to what they are actually divining, some will say one thing, whilst another something else, so what needs to be done is to discover this first anomaly, which can then lead to actual scientific tests.
Personally, I don’t think divining is very difficult to do and most people could pick it up with a little practice, therefore the researchers could conduct tests themselves. The difficulty is making some meaning from it, which will only come with experience, but if you are only testing minerals, rock, water, etc., it should not prove too difficult.
PermeateFree said:
I really do really get tired of having armchair experts with absolutely no experience, claiming to be more knowledgeable than those that do. Science does not know everything as any scientist will tell you, which mean things should not be dismissed unless you have good evidence to the contrary, of which that silly skeptic test is just that, silly with no hope of gaining anything of scientific value.I did not divine for water, but used the technique to gain information about things underground that I could not see. I tested my results by viewing open-cut mines where the substrates were visible and I paid people to drill many holes to again test what I thought was there. However, I was never sure exactly what I was detecting, whether silica, water, gypsum, etc., but what I did detect were slides and the direction they were facing and hydro-thermal activity, which was enough to give relevant information on what had happened in the past. Divining to me was a tool, not the only one, but one I could cover a fair amount of ground and get some idea of the influences that had impacted upon it.
You can tell me where the slides are?
You’d be welcome at my mine.
PermeateFree said:
I don’t think there has been any research done on divining, simply because it is so difficult to organise and to prove or disprove.
http://www.undeceivingourselves.org/S-divi.htm
PermeateFree said:
PermeateFree said:
sibeen said:The sceptics set up each test in consultation with ‘the gifted’. Both need to agree to the conditions for the test to go ahead.
The gifted with the paranormal are often paranormal themselves and/or think they can do far more than they are capable. The skeptic test was not a true test, as you generally do not go around looking for bits of pipe filled with water. There is no consensus with diviners as to what they are actually divining, some will say one thing, whilst another something else, so what needs to be done is to discover this first anomaly, which can then lead to actual scientific tests.
Personally, I don’t think divining is very difficult to do and most people could pick it up with a little practice, therefore the researchers could conduct tests themselves. The difficulty is making some meaning from it, which will only come with experience, but if you are only testing minerals, rock, water, etc., it should not prove too difficult.
I was handed the wires and told to use them. I had no idea of what to expect or to find. “Oh don’t worry, the wires will teach you”. was the response.
roughbarked said:
PermeateFree said:
PermeateFree said:The gifted with the paranormal are often paranormal themselves and/or think they can do far more than they are capable. The skeptic test was not a true test, as you generally do not go around looking for bits of pipe filled with water. There is no consensus with diviners as to what they are actually divining, some will say one thing, whilst another something else, so what needs to be done is to discover this first anomaly, which can then lead to actual scientific tests.
Personally, I don’t think divining is very difficult to do and most people could pick it up with a little practice, therefore the researchers could conduct tests themselves. The difficulty is making some meaning from it, which will only come with experience, but if you are only testing minerals, rock, water, etc., it should not prove too difficult.
I was handed the wires and told to use them. I had no idea of what to expect or to find. “Oh don’t worry, the wires will teach you”. was the response.
I used the wires underground and chose a direction to travel. I ran into a bit of a fault asked others and they said doesn’t look likely. However I sat down with the wires and strangely enough they kept spiralling down on the spot. So I decided to dig down on the fault. It was no easy task but I did get there and it was full of opal.
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:
PermeateFree said:Personally, I don’t think divining is very difficult to do and most people could pick it up with a little practice, therefore the researchers could conduct tests themselves. The difficulty is making some meaning from it, which will only come with experience, but if you are only testing minerals, rock, water, etc., it should not prove too difficult.
I was handed the wires and told to use them. I had no idea of what to expect or to find. “Oh don’t worry, the wires will teach you”. was the response.
I used the wires underground and chose a direction to travel. I ran into a bit of a fault asked others and they said doesn’t look likely. However I sat down with the wires and strangely enough they kept spiralling down on the spot. So I decided to dig down on the fault. It was no easy task but I did get there and it was full of opal.
Now a sceptic would tell me that if you keep digging long enough in ground that bears opal, you will find some.
This is clearly not the truth as where I was digging only 19 of every 100 shafts dug, brought up any trace at all. Of those 19, barely 5 found enough opal to buy beer with.
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:I was handed the wires and told to use them. I had no idea of what to expect or to find. “Oh don’t worry, the wires will teach you”. was the response.
I used the wires underground and chose a direction to travel. I ran into a bit of a fault asked others and they said doesn’t look likely. However I sat down with the wires and strangely enough they kept spiralling down on the spot. So I decided to dig down on the fault. It was no easy task but I did get there and it was full of opal.
Now a sceptic would tell me that if you keep digging long enough in ground that bears opal, you will find some.
This is clearly not the truth as where I was digging only 19 of every 100 shafts dug, brought up any trace at all. Of those 19, barely 5 found enough opal to buy beer with.
At the time, I was a complete new chum. Had no idea of how or where opal may form. I did a survey with the wires and wrote some notes, put the wires away and never bothered with them since. When I ran out of signs of opal in the hole I was digging I checked my notes and went down another old shaft where they hadn’t found opal. That had impressed me when divining. Hit a sheet of opal a few feet deeper than the old miners had gone. Am still digging this sheet of opal. There seems to be no end to in any direction so far. Only problem with that is the lack of saleable colour found in it., so far.
PermeateFree said:
Arts said:
the thing about science is that it needs to be replicable using the same conditions. That’s what makes science science. So if you believe something is real, then you need to find the gap in the literature and then do the experiments with a guide to allow others to also do the experiments and find the same results. That’s what peer reviewing is. It’s the best thing we have to prove anything or disprove anything.Of course, anything is a theory, proven or otherwise, there to be disproven, by anyone willing to follow the same protocols.
I don’t think there has been any research done on divining, simply because it is so difficult to organise and to prove or disprove. As I have said before nobody is claiming divining is a science, but there is something going on there and it is not something to be dismissed out of hand, especially by those with no actual experience and therefore have no idea of what might be possible.
I agree with pf.
Science isn’t just about measuring stuff, it’s about observing observable effects, and looking for connections between them. If the observable effects are consistently repeatable, and precisely measurable, that makes life easy, but there are very many things that have such complex interactions that it becomes very difficult to make repeatable observations. Some interactions of the human brain with its environment certainly fall in that category.
We know that something is going on with divining. It may well just be people taking random inputs and magnifying them to produce an output that they attach significance to, but to design tests specifically to produce that result, and to class any other result as “paranormal”, is not very scientific, is it?
The Rev Dodgson said:
PermeateFree said:
Arts said:
the thing about science is that it needs to be replicable using the same conditions. That’s what makes science science. So if you believe something is real, then you need to find the gap in the literature and then do the experiments with a guide to allow others to also do the experiments and find the same results. That’s what peer reviewing is. It’s the best thing we have to prove anything or disprove anything.Of course, anything is a theory, proven or otherwise, there to be disproven, by anyone willing to follow the same protocols.
I don’t think there has been any research done on divining, simply because it is so difficult to organise and to prove or disprove. As I have said before nobody is claiming divining is a science, but there is something going on there and it is not something to be dismissed out of hand, especially by those with no actual experience and therefore have no idea of what might be possible.
I agree with pf.
Science isn’t just about measuring stuff, it’s about observing observable effects, and looking for connections between them. If the observable effects are consistently repeatable, and precisely measurable, that makes life easy, but there are very many things that have such complex interactions that it becomes very difficult to make repeatable observations. Some interactions of the human brain with its environment certainly fall in that category.
We know that something is going on with divining. It may well just be people taking random inputs and magnifying them to produce an output that they attach significance to, but to design tests specifically to produce that result, and to class any other result as “paranormal”, is not very scientific, is it?
yeah.
The Rev Dodgson said:
….We know that something is going on with divining. It may well just be people taking random inputs and magnifying them to produce an output that they attach significance to, but to design tests specifically to produce that result, and to class any other result as “paranormal”, is not very scientific, is it?
it is the woo aspect of them “detecting” unseen conditions that is the problem. lending credence to bits of twitching wire. maybe they are just good a reading landscapes and the like. or that water is common. or that coincidences do occur.
The Rev Dodgson said:
PermeateFree said:
Arts said:
the thing about science is that it needs to be replicable using the same conditions. That’s what makes science science. So if you believe something is real, then you need to find the gap in the literature and then do the experiments with a guide to allow others to also do the experiments and find the same results. That’s what peer reviewing is. It’s the best thing we have to prove anything or disprove anything.Of course, anything is a theory, proven or otherwise, there to be disproven, by anyone willing to follow the same protocols.
I don’t think there has been any research done on divining, simply because it is so difficult to organise and to prove or disprove. As I have said before nobody is claiming divining is a science, but there is something going on there and it is not something to be dismissed out of hand, especially by those with no actual experience and therefore have no idea of what might be possible.
I agree with pf.
Science isn’t just about measuring stuff, it’s about observing observable effects, and looking for connections between them. If the observable effects are consistently repeatable, and precisely measurable, that makes life easy, but there are very many things that have such complex interactions that it becomes very difficult to make repeatable observations. Some interactions of the human brain with its environment certainly fall in that category.
We know that something is going on with divining. It may well just be people taking random inputs and magnifying them to produce an output that they attach significance to, but to design tests specifically to produce that result, and to class any other result as “paranormal”, is not very scientific, is it?
I didn’t say it was just about measuring stuff, I said it needs to be replicable using the same parameters. If we don’t put in parameters then we aren’t testing the same thing. The nice thing about science is that it is happy to be dis-proven. From the link earlier, I think what we ‘know’ about divining, from those tests, is that it’s no more efficient than randomisation. I do notice at the end of many many peer reviewed papers I have read are the words ..“more testing..” especially when it comes to qualitative ideas. I remain unconvinced about divining, however I don’t place it in a ‘woo’ category – being able to read landscape is actually a pretty neat skill…
Arts said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
PermeateFree said:I don’t think there has been any research done on divining, simply because it is so difficult to organise and to prove or disprove. As I have said before nobody is claiming divining is a science, but there is something going on there and it is not something to be dismissed out of hand, especially by those with no actual experience and therefore have no idea of what might be possible.
I agree with pf.
Science isn’t just about measuring stuff, it’s about observing observable effects, and looking for connections between them. If the observable effects are consistently repeatable, and precisely measurable, that makes life easy, but there are very many things that have such complex interactions that it becomes very difficult to make repeatable observations. Some interactions of the human brain with its environment certainly fall in that category.
We know that something is going on with divining. It may well just be people taking random inputs and magnifying them to produce an output that they attach significance to, but to design tests specifically to produce that result, and to class any other result as “paranormal”, is not very scientific, is it?
I didn’t say it was just about measuring stuff, I said it needs to be replicable using the same parameters. If we don’t put in parameters then we aren’t testing the same thing. The nice thing about science is that it is happy to be dis-proven. From the link earlier, I think what we ‘know’ about divining, from those tests, is that it’s no more efficient than randomisation. I do notice at the end of many many peer reviewed papers I have read are the words ..“more testing..” especially when it comes to qualitative ideas. I remain unconvinced about divining, however I don’t place it in a ‘woo’ category – being able to read landscape is actually a pretty neat skill…
yeah, it is like biodynamics. lot of woo attached to that when the simple answer could just be “we put cow manure on the fields and that helps the micro-organisms which make a healthy soil”.
Arts said:
I didn’t say it was just about measuring stuff,
No, it was Wookiemeister who said that.
Probably a mistake to give him a response these days though.
Surely divining is based on some sort of scientific principle (currently unknown) it’s not magic.
As was mentioned it could require complex and numerous interactions that make it hard to repeat under scientific trials.
In July 1980, Dick Smith and I engaged in a series of tests of dowsers—diviners of water, metal, etc—in Sydney. For weeks, Prior to the tests, we exchanged long letters discussing protocol and physical design. By the time I reached Australia the Prize money for a successful demonstration of dowsing had mounted to $40,000 from a modest beginning with my own offer of $10,000..
When the results were tabulated, 111 tries had been made, with an expected 10% success rate by chance alone, There were 15 successes, 13.5%, a figure well within expectation.
But what had the dowsers declared as their expected success rate? It averaged out to better than 92%! Surely a poor performance, and one in which every rule , precaution and Procedure had been carefully and fully approved and agreed to in advance by all parties concerned.
Looking at the tests on specific substances, the water tests showed 50 tests total with 11 correct or 22%. The dowsers claimed they would have 86% success. As for the brass tests, they claimed 87%—and got zero. Gold seemed more attractive, and they expected 99%, but obtained 11%…
By far the most important fact that emerges is this: The participants were all able to show strong reactions when they knew where the sought-after substance was, but failed grandly when they actually underwent a proper test…
Why then, do the instruments show such positive reactions, and what makes them move? The answer lies, not in mysterious electro-magnetic or “psychic” forces, but in “ideomotor reaction”.
The Amazing Randi
https://www.skeptics.com.au/resources/articles/australian-skeptics-divining-test/
Ian said:
In July 1980, Dick Smith and I engaged in a series of tests of dowsers—diviners of water, metal, etc—in Sydney. For weeks, Prior to the tests, we exchanged long letters discussing protocol and physical design. By the time I reached Australia the Prize money for a successful demonstration of dowsing had mounted to $40,000 from a modest beginning with my own offer of $10,000..When the results were tabulated, 111 tries had been made, with an expected 10% success rate by chance alone, There were 15 successes, 13.5%, a figure well within expectation.
But what had the dowsers declared as their expected success rate? It averaged out to better than 92%! Surely a poor performance, and one in which every rule , precaution and Procedure had been carefully and fully approved and agreed to in advance by all parties concerned.
Looking at the tests on specific substances, the water tests showed 50 tests total with 11 correct or 22%. The dowsers claimed they would have 86% success. As for the brass tests, they claimed 87%—and got zero. Gold seemed more attractive, and they expected 99%, but obtained 11%…
By far the most important fact that emerges is this: The participants were all able to show strong reactions when they knew where the sought-after substance was, but failed grandly when they actually underwent a proper test…
Why then, do the instruments show such positive reactions, and what makes them move? The answer lies, not in mysterious electro-magnetic or “psychic” forces, but in “ideomotor reaction”.
The Amazing Randi
https://www.skeptics.com.au/resources/articles/australian-skeptics-divining-test/
As I have already said, there are many strange people who use divining methods along with many strange results, but with further investigation of others have not produced results. Therefore it is important that the researchers themselves learn how to do it and with scientific protocols in place, test it themselves and not rely on the hearsay of others who may or may not be reliable.
Basically, divining is thought to rely upon the sensitivity of the diviners and hence some are apparently better than others. The wire is like an aerial to detect and visually indicate the information that is received by the diviner. I should add here that many animals detect energy (for want of a better word) to navigate, detect food, etc., so it should not be a surprise that we too might possess sensitivities that we call paranormal.
To scientifically test divining by the scientists themselves, could initially be narrowed down by testing materials, such as silica and water that I have found to be the responsive, plus hydro-thermal activity that would involve both and responds strongly. Once a scientific base is established, further studies can then commence.
Should these be here?
Is this a paranormal thing?
Is it a virus?
Is it an an infrasound or sonic attack?
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/14/attacked-in-bed-safe-a-few-feet-away-cuba-mystery-deepens.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-15/us-investigates-mystery-acoustic-attacks-on-diplomats-in-cuba/8950568