Eodnhoj7 wrote:Addressed at bottom and prior post. ...
No you haven't, wood or plastic is pretty much EM neutral, mounting your rods upon them and seeing if they move when you wave your copper pyramid around them would be a perfectly acceptable test of whether dowsing rods can detect EM fields as you claim.
What the studies fails to take into account is the ideomotor response being activated by the rods.
The argument, you claim, is a false causality. The hands cause the rods to move, when dually the rods can cause the hands to move...it is a question of relativity.
It's pretty much a truism that one knows they are talking to a crank when the word "relativity" is raised.
But let's say that the rods are causing the movement, well if they are then that motion should be dectable when you aren't holding them so do the test above to see if that is the case.
physics forums: a review of dowsing for and against.
Shows a variety of articles as well as hypothesis as to why in certain circumstances they do work.
Post them up then as I'd be interested in what methodologies they used that were more rigorous than the Kassel test.
False, they were looking for water. I was looking for spots that caused the rods to go off and if those spots could cause the rods to repeatedly go off or not. The curved copper constitutes those spots.
Different context. ...
Then do a double-blind test to prove this claim. Start with ten boxes and have someone put your curved copper into one of them without your knowledge and see if you can get them to go off repeatably. Logik can probably tell you how many times you should do the test to beat the 1 in 10 chance respectably or even how many boxes there should be to prove the efficacy of dowsing rods.
No he actually posted it months ago as some insult. ...
Must have given you wet dreams.
False, governmental studies.
Post them up then.
Second...the subject object dualism is put into question with any act of observation as the framework itself is an extension of the individual's ability to reason.
You can bash the rods all you want, and I even argue the testing needs to be done further as this is just a base starting context, however you cannot argue against all frameworks are just rationale that is an extension of the observer.
It's not even a base start as you haven't tested your tools in any manner.
Yes...I know, what you cannot get through your head is that I am not arguing for dowsing rods alone...and that further test frameworks must be applied. ...
They shouldn't even be a first framework if you haven't tested their worth.
I mean are you really that fucking stupid...of course you are.
How is that tin-foil hat, nice and shiny?
I already stated dowsing rods were used, but further experimentation and observation is required. ...
You haven't done any testing or experimentation at all yet.
You keep saying "no dowsing" when I am not arguing for "dowsing alone". What dowsing represents is strictly a set of test results for that relative framework...it is not the be all end all.
It's not even the be all so far.
False, all results are the results or a framework. When the framework changes so do the results. Standard dietary science observes this....one day egg yolks are bad for health...the next they they are good.
Science continually overwrite itself resulting in a state of nihilism as to not just its inherent results always changing but that it in itself is in a constant flux. ...
But they still use the same tools.
You are just a wannabe skeptic, research the history of science and you would find what is fact one day is false the next. ...
False, the facts don't change the explanations for them do.
Science is literally subject to entropy through time relative to it's "facts"...so whatever is true one day, as an atomic fact is not true the next.
What's an 'atomic fact' when it's at home? What generally happens in 'science' is that explanations get localised.
Actually....no I will not. And the reason is I already explained the means and manner as well as the testing still being done. If you think I plan on limiting it to dowsing alone, false. ...
What next, pendulums?
I look forward to you posting up your results but I won't be holding my breath.
If you think I will exclude it based off some preconceived prejudice from a community that cannot keeps its facts straight or even has a system of ethic...also false. ...
"System of ethic", what are you waffling on about now?
The proof is just an observation of relations between variables...that is it...it is both true and false.
And the whole point of 'science' is to isolate a variable enough to test it, something you are patently unwilling to do as it'd get in the way of your metaphysic.
They are still stuck with the logical problem of success rates. The hypothesis of hand movement is deterministic ally false and one sided when limiting itself to the hands move the rods when dually it must be asked it the rods move the hands.
So far there have been no studies that show anything other than a success rate in accordance with the laws of chance. With respect to the rods moving the hands try your stuff with swivel dowsers then.
What you fail to understand is that there is no pure objectivity in science due to modes of interpretation and framework. All test results define the framework...that is it. ...
Except that in experimental 'science' they use double-blind tests, etc, and tests have to be repeatable by others and reproduce the same results otherwise it's generally bunkum.
Honestly I cannot take you seriously, Britain is a 3rd world country.
Of course it is.
I don't have to, you offer nothing of value and any explanation you provide can be negated through pure skepticism. ...
What's "pure scepticism" when its at home? But you could do with applying some of that scepticism to your 'experiments'.
False, I tested the rods prior to see if they even worked at all. Prior to even applying them on the bent copper. I would walk in an orchard. If the rods crossed I walk away. If they uncrossed I walked back to see if they would cross again or not in the same spot.
They cross and undress repeatedly in certain spots.
lmfao! Did you not pay attention to the idea of unstable equilibrium with respect to dowsing rods? Did you get someone else to walk your orchard with their dowsing rods to see if they got the same results?
False, the testing I observed was more random and simple. Do they cross in same spots repeatedly or not? That is it. If they do than a "correlative", not "causal", relation of detection of some change can be observed. ...
The correlation being that your subconscious made sure the rods crossed back at the points you wanted.
Do it yourself, get some rods....walk around, are there movements replicable? Or not.
Did all this stuff when I was around 13, the answer is yes at times they were but when someone else did them and no they weren't.
I have a better idea why don't you by a little copper wire and replicate it yourself...there is nothing I can do where you won't doubt what I have to say. Just repeat what I already argued...and stop crying like a little girl over these dousing rods. ...
Who's crying? I'm pissing myself with laughter that you've turned out to be of the tin-foil brigade.
I looked through what argument you provided.
I think what you fail to take into account is that I explicitly stated that the rods where a very simple baseline and further testing must be observed (ie not excluding rods but not limited to them either).
I stated this multiple times.
You can beat up the dowsing rods all you want, to strawman both the Russian studies and the fact I have claimed the study should not be limited to dousing rods but they are used as a base context.
You keep arguing "no dousing rods"...when I even agree that dousing rods alone should not be used without conjunction to other manners of interpretation.
What Russian studies? Post them up.
I'm not arguing no dowsing rods, I'm arguing that you should test your measuring tools to see if they are up to the job in the first place.
Bye the bye, you've not answered my question of what EM fields you think you are 'warping' or even what you mean by this 'warping'?
Still, I thank you as you are like a living history demonstration as you show very nicely why the metaphysician/philosophers(in your case "wannabee") were replaced by the natural philosophers when it came to exploring how the world works.