Added: 4 years ago
From: junmn77
Views: 2,962
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (11)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • All the successes (22% or less) of dowsing proves is nothing since it is hit or miss. It merely shows that there is a statistical probability of anomalous cases. It also proves something about human psychology; namely, that people are credulous BECAUSE there is no reasonable explanation or proof. But, hasn't magic taught us that incredible phenomena always has a simple explanation?

  • @EdMahoney19 yeh but you're gay

  • Sometimes i do dowsing,and,I understand what I catch is a simple interference. But I guarantee I can find water.

  • @doormagic

    If you dig deep enough you will likely find water about 85% of the time no matter where you dig.

  • @masterhalco humm.....I'm not so sure about it. In my area up to 300 meters is probably that there is no water.

    Dowsing is a interferance,you find what you seek.

  • how can can you do a test,when your doing it on the ground,when there is a lake water in the ground under an object you placed on the ground,this is not a good test

  • What is eye opening is to have a visionary like AC Clark who can be both down-to-earth, logical, and yet not just dismiss something out of hand because there is not enough evidence to back it up. We need more people like him... I suggest cloning.

  • I agree. James Randi is entirely the opposite. A crashing negative bore.

  • @RogerDodger69 Yes! sceptics dont have a neutral and interested mind .. most that i have met could put you off being able to tie your shoe laces!

  • @RogerDodger69 Clarke was much more than just a great academic, or a great intellectual - something of which the world enjoys a fair abundance. Clarke was much more rare. He was a great mind - a great thinker. And, he was a visionary. Each generation - or perhaps even every couple of generations - we are gifted with only a precious few of such extraordinary people.

  • Another issue with Randi's experiment is surely that you have to repeatedly test the same person, not do one test with lots of people. The 20% success rate mentioned might come from a few people who are always right - they might have a 100% rate! but this is masked by other subjects who do no better than chance.

    The 'path' experiment is interesting because it's done on people who are not professing to be dowsers.

    Interesting stuff - thanks for posting!

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more