Thread: ESP: Extra sensory perception? Do you believe it?

Yesterday I had a pyschology class. Our professor asked each individual if we believed in ESP. A number of students in my class were astounded by the question and immediately answered with "No, ESP is not real, It's probably fake". Our professor then told us that he would prove to us that it is real. He then gave us a set of blank flash cards and asked all the individuals in the class to write their names and something about them that the professor does not know about. We put them in an envelop, and without looking the flash cards. The teacher started to say names, and what was exactly written in each card. It was impressive. Now I'm asking all you psychology students out there, is this guessing game real? Is it magic or is actual ESP.

Thank you for reading my long message

Cheers =]

Professors have the tools to know a lot about students before the first class--especially now days where most of leave digitial information all over applications and in various places all over the internet.

When's a student going to ask him where he's published his research to support the idea of ESP.

My guess is he's using it as a learning tool to help students become more critical thinkers who use logic, objective evidence and scientific method before jumping to conclusions.

I definitely had the same idea as you. I thought that perhaps he found another resources or tools to find information. However, what really got me stumble was the fact that he wasn't guessing just random information. Each individual would write something about themselves that noone else knew. It could be their favorite colour, childhood or anything else. We never introduced ourselves but he was able to say exactly what we wrote on each blank flash card varying from pet names to childhood incidents. I have done some recent research on ESP after class but I was not able to find any information regarding that kind of techique. Our assignment was to research ESP and attempt to find a way to prove that his ESP is only a magic trick.

Thank you for leaving a comment, I appreciate your insight.

Perhaps he had rigged up video cameras to film the students writing?
Perhaps they were all paid to agree with him, as part of some experiment to show how someone (e.g. you) reacts to impossible events?
There are many explanations that don't require the use of unevidenced techniques like ESP.

But there are also many explanations that would require unevidenced factors.
Maybe the information was scanned by aliens and the put directly into his brain?
Maybe he froze time and read the papers while you were 'stuck' in time?

Which type of explanation do you think is more likely?

Our assignment was to research ESP and attempt to find a way to prove that his ESP is only a magic trick.

Try changing the circumstances of the trick.

Bring in your own sealed envelope with your own card with your name and a fact.
(Choose a fact from when you were a young child: something unrecorded e.g. You had a pair of shoes that you hated.)
Don't tell anyone - including your friends.
Then ask the professor what the 'fact' is.

If he complains, then repeat the whole process - but in a room of your choosing, using your own card and envelope.

You might find this link interesting:
James Randi exposes Uri Geller and Peter Popoff - YouTube
It is particularly relevant at about the 6 minute mark.

This experiment sounds very interesting...but at last...if he is your professor HE should answer you, your questions. I guess he isnt paid to do magic tricks or (if there are) NOT tell you the secrets of ESP, if he knows them.
But what I dont get...IF there is ESP, it is normally described as...somebody leaving his body and fly around...and have a look things from above. I never heard of someone who was able to look threw tables.
Was your professor even meditating or something like that?
About ESP...After all I understood senses are just give some hints, and the brains the one that turns them into sounds, pictures, smells...
If the brain doesnt get any Information he is creating some. I personally think of the brain not as a kind of controll center or computer but as an artist. It is an poetic director that works with inspirations it gathered. The senses are just councilors. But of course, our brain imagining something dont make it real (I mention that because I know a lot of durg users that swear it does). So...if somebody for example is in a hospital
and have a Close Death Experience...his brain tells him: "there will be doctors and nurses trying to help you" so you see doctors and nurses trying to help you. I also heard stories about a guy who exactly saw what the doctor was doing...but I think even if your body is unconsciousness we still feel things and maybe the information from the body part he was operated on and his knowledge about, a doctor is doing it mixed and created this image.
In an experiment someone put pictures with the painted side to the ceiling. So the patients never saw the picture...but if they had ESP and fly around the room the should know what is on that. After all I know nobody (who said he was flying around and had a clear sight) was able to see the or just a picture.
If think of flying around, my brain WILL give me pictures about, me flying in a room. I would say it is like "movies" and "news-report". Even if there isn't an car crash TV can show us pictures of a car crash, that are as real as a real car crash. So...we could say sensoral perception is kind of an illusion.
So...nothing you see is real, it is the part of reallity your brain wants to show.
Any ESP phenomenon I ever came across can be perfectly explaind by that.
But I admit, if your professor REALLY can fly around and look at your sheets that would totally contradict what I believe.
(btw what an awfull thought, so he can see any disrespectful pictures someone might draw on a paper during class, he could even watch the ladys showering...my gosh)
No...after all, I think you should just ask him.
-
I'am very looking forward to that...
-
(Btw...please pardon my english)

ESP is a load of balderdash. Those who claim to have it are hoaxers or fraudsters. A lot of such claimants are also swindlers, and should be avoided like the plague.

There are scientists who have spent years trying to determine whether ESP is real or not. The one true result they have achieved is a clear cut inverse relation between the rigor of ESP tests and the likelihood of something being seen. In other words, if the tests are done properly, no ESP appears.

Dr. Richard Wiseman, for example, has done dozens of tests for ESP and concludes it does not exist.
Take Richard Wiseman's ESP Test - YouTube

The other interesting thing is that a retired stage magician, who goes under the name James Randi, has established a million dollar prize for anyone who can prove he/she has a psychic power. After many years, and over a thousand people trying to claim it, the million dollars remains safe. That is because those who claim psychic abilities strangely cannot perform them under controlled conditions.
James Randi Educational Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know it is real.

Sorry, not giving any details.

Originally Posted by Unknown

Our professor asked each individual if we believed in ESP.

First clue that the prof definitely doesn't have it


I

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

... Sorry, not giving any details.

Then we have no reason to assume your post is anything but trolling.

I do not precisely know what is meant by ESP. But I do know that when I meet someone I know instantly weather this person is ok with me or not.
Also I notice as of now, that I did start this message with "i". That is just jabberwokky, but what is not total poppycock is the fact that I hear the low resonance of a truck miles away, hear the bass of the airconditioning amplified in the building where i am in. I am aware of the tension in a room right away and know who is and who isn't willing to communicate. I can see someone that is lying and the problem is that most people who lie to me sense that i know they are. That makes it all the more awkward.
Do not perceive it to be a sixth sense, cause it is not. As for the intense bass manifestations and low frequency sounds: check a doctor because it might very well be a brain tumor. Oversensitive people just do exist. I can not stand loud tv's, no maddening crowds, and sometimes even a voice sounds to me like nails on a chalkboard
I do not believe in paranormal perception. To my knowledge no crime has ever been solved by means of that. I dare people with ESP to show us what ever happened to Jimmy Hoffa. Or whatever.

Originally Posted by skeptic

ESP is a load of balderdash. Those who claim to have it are hoaxers or fraudsters. A lot of such claimants are also swindlers, and should be avoided like the plague.

There are scientists who have spent years trying to determine whether ESP is real or not. The one true result they have achieved is a clear cut inverse relation between the rigor of ESP tests and the likelihood of something being seen. In other words, if the tests are done properly, no ESP appears.

Dr. Richard Wiseman, for example, has done dozens of tests for ESP and concludes it does not exist.
Take Richard Wiseman's ESP Test - YouTube

The other interesting thing is that a retired stage magician, who goes under the name James Randi, has established a million dollar prize for anyone who can prove he/she has a psychic power. After many years, and over a thousand people trying to claim it, the million dollars remains safe. That is because those who claim psychic abilities strangely cannot perform them under controlled conditions.
James Randi Educational Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your evidence merely demonstrates a lack of valid evidence to support the existence of ESP.

Obviously, this is not the same thing as evidence that ESP does not exist.

Let's be careful about making unscientific claims on both sides of the argument.

Personally, I have not been presented with any evidence or first-hand experience to support its existence, but I am always open to discussion and new data.

vash

My evidence is nevertheless valid. If more than 1000 claimants have their claims disproved, it rather discredits claims of ESP abilities.

The point is that, if ESP exists, it has been given every chance to be demonstrated to science. Each and every effort to do so has been discredited, at least as long as the scientific testing is robust.

dismissing esp and astral projection
as balderdash
is a self fulfilling prophecy

or not

Skeptic, I understand and generally agree; your evidence is valid.

I just think we must be careful of muddling our own inferences/intuitions with scientifically verifiable claims.

Practically speaking, what reason is there to use the phrase 'ESP does not exist' instead of the more precise 'There is no scientific evidence to support the existence of ESP'?

Originally Posted by vash31

Practically speaking, what reason is there to use the phrase 'ESP does not exist' instead of the more precise 'There is no scientific evidence to support the existence of ESP'?

Fair point.

I sometimes use a more outrageous phrasing to get a point across with a bit more oompah. However, you are correct that an alternate phrasing may be more scientifically accurate.

Yeah I do the same sometimes. The difference might seem trivial but I find it helpful in diminishing future bias.

Recently, in a Dutch homocide case which I estimate to have reopened a few months ago roughly, some so called psychic entered the news claiming the whereabouts of the bicycle on which the victim supposedly was riding during the days of his/her vanishing. It proved to be right and the bike was retrieved.
Even though this might sound so convincing in a way in which the infidels have to concede to some lucky estimated guess, is outright preposterous. I rather believe this so called psychic was actually the murderer himself than to believe in sixth sense gibberish. If I was the police I would call up some pipe smoking black people with a couple of pliers and a blowtorch....you know the rest.

The professor was doing stage magic. I'm pretty sure this is a standard "mind reading act". My father was a stage magician and used to preform a similar act. The original post does not give enough information to guess which method his professor used. Part of the act is to misdirect the audience so they do not notice the critical event. One way would be to pass the cards over a reflective surface in the "putting them in an envelope" stage. Another would be through the use of assistents in the audience.

The essence of stage magic is that the magician lies to you. Also he tries to convince you that you have seen the impossible, when what you have seen is merely very unlikely, painful or unpleasent.

Houdini once convinced an assembly of scientists that he had slight telekinetic powers. First he told them that, of course 99% of his act was merely trickery, ( by telling them that he gave the impression that he was being truthful) Then he went on to say but the reason he had gotten into the magic act business was that he did have slight powers which he would demonstrate for them. He then had an analytic balence brought on stage. He assured the scientists that he would not touch the balence but would make one side of the balence fall. He indicates which side of the balence he will direct his mental force at by pointing at it with a pencil he takes from his pocket. then he concentrates and the pan of the balence that he had indicated slowly sinks. he then passes his hand over it and it slowly rises to the neutral position.
What he had actually done was sprinkel baby fleas, which had been concealed in the lead space of the pencil, on the balence. In taking it from his pocket he had flicted off a wax plug from the end of the pencil. The analytic balence responded to the weight of the fleas, but when he passed his hand over the pan they jumped onto his tastety flesh.

This demonstrates the priciples of successfull stage magic: Lie, misdirect, disproportionate preparation( he had to become a flea wrangler, take appart and reassemble a pencil), and willingly doing that which is repugnant (getting infested with fleas).

You may wonder why it takes so long to find Jimmy Hoffa's remains. Maybe the excuse of the (tax-payed) Forensic Psychology Unit comes down to something like:
"although Mr. X seemed to have solved the JFK assassination and told us it indeed was Oswald acting as the lone gunman, he crossed his heart, and his fingers, that he was not able to solve the crime of that missing 4 year old girl, because his medium guides up in heaven needed a holiday. Though the papacy of Rome officially denounced/retracted the very concept of "kiddy limbo" in the front portals of heaven he concluded his statement: "but she is playing happily ever after with her own kind now"
The Texas New Born Christian newspaper did not mention her "kind" was afro-american.

I......have no idea what just happened.

There is no such thing as ESP. If anyone or group of people say otherwise prove it to them and say there is only one type of sixth sense:

I see braindead people.

Q
a wise man in here once posted

absense of proof is not proof of absense

maybe you should be a tad more temperate in your declarations

Sculptor

There is no point being temperate about idiotic ideas. Outspoken is the best way.

Psychic abilities have been the subject of intensive scientific testing for decades, and a lot continues to this day. If the testing is rigorous, the results are negative. Every time. Every damn time!

Wishful thinking does not make it correct. The short answer is that there is no ESP*. There are no psychic abilities. There are only idiots who delude themselves into thinking they are psychic. Plus a bunch of swindlers and hoaxers who screw anyone naive enough to believe them.

Science is about testing and evidence. The testing has been done and the evidence says very clearly - no ESP!!




*OK. I agree that this is not a very scientific way of putting it. I should say something like : proper scientific testing demonstrates a low probability of ESP being real. Or something like that. But I want to drive the point home. So there!

Originally Posted by sculptor

Q
a wise man in here once posted

absense of proof is not proof of absense

maybe you should be a tad more temperate in your declarations

Listen sage, if you want to prove something PROVE IT. You can't prove the non-existence of something, that is a paradox.

"I prove that there are no ghosts or ESP".
"Well, how did you prove there wasn't"?

You can't prove the non-existence of something, something that exists has to be proven. That is what science is, if it's there you can prove it, if you can't you can't. Saying "absense of proof is not proof of absense" is as redundant as saying "A chicken walks left upside down in penny mane carpet flumps". It's a nonsensical load of bollocks.

I think when it comes to being 'temperate in your declarations', you might want to, well, be more temperate in your declarations.

A good point, sculptor. No amount of crack-pottery around ESP (or any other subject) precludes some phenomena of which we are yet to be apprised. Not quite the same, but I recall seeing an old astronomy book which contained the phrase "...although man will never be able to set foot on the moon..."

Originally Posted by sculptor

absense of proof is not proof of absense

Do you believe in everything until it is proven not to exist? Unicorns, elves, Father Christmas, every single deity (past, present and future), every fictional character ever created (and those not yet), the tooth fairy, all possible aliens, every conspiracy theory ...

Strange, sculptors point does not imply this. It says only that we ought to claim "there is no proof of ESP" as opposed to "there is no ESP". That is hardly worth getting excited about.

Hmmm... Really? So we shouldn't say "there is no such thing as father Christmas/Voldermort/Daleks" (even though we know who invented them) because they might possibly exist? Really?

I came up with a novel (I think) argument that ESP doesn't exist ...

If ESP existed then presumably it would provide an advantage to those individuals that had it. In which case it would be selected for. In which case it would be common. And we would probably have ESP championships where people show off the skillz.

On the other hand, if something that is so subtle and hard to detect that it might as well not exist ...


Also, it isn't just "absence of evidence"; it is stronger than that: every case where people claim to have psychic abilities have been shown to be false. It's not just that we can't find a trace of it; it is that every "trace" turns out to be lies, self-delusion, errors, etc. If this isn't evidence against, I don't know what would be.

No Joshua, his point implies that because there is something unexplainable then the most logical thing to assume is true. Which is false, and it is a common reason for 'rational belief' in a lot of people:

1. Unexplainable could be hallucinations, fabrications, cold chills because of the air, varying temperatures. Not ghosts.
2. That person looks like a ghost, it must be a physical manifestation and not me hallucinating or stress related.

People believe, whatever they want to believe. I know Joshua and Sculptor because I have been there, believing in ghosts and God. I got smarter and those beliefs went. Frankly, even if there are ghosts, what's the point in me investing so much time trying to persuade others when you have no proof. If they exist you'll have the proof. Science is about proving theories, people haved tested these theories you proclaim for DECADES, and not one shred of evidence has turned up. Its LOGICAL to think that they do not exist, think about it.

Originally Posted by Strange

I came up with a novel (I think) argument that ESP doesn't exist ...

It is a very good argument, but (sadly) not novel. I first heard it decades back, and it has been bandied round skeptics groups for that long, at least.

I don't see how these points are contrary or mutually exclusive. I'm not suggesting we fall prey to the Burden of Proof fallacy (God is real, now prove me wrong or it remains that God is real!!). I am suggesting we recognize our own abilities are limited, and as such we can only make claims about a very small slice of the universe. As humanity's knowledge grows, things that were once preposterous begin to make sense (but in a completely unexpected way). For example, it was once believed that "invisible" things (demons, etc, depending on culture) were the cause of sickness. No rational scientist believed this, obviously, but as it turned out there was something "invisible" making people sick--namely viruses, bacteria, etc. I am not suggesting we believe in demons. I'm not saying we should believe in ESP. What I am saying is more along the lines of: yes, we ought to refrain from belief in some mystical or psuedo explanation of unexplained events, but we ought also to except the possibility that some of these unexplained events may turn out to have a very real and scientific explanation that is currently beyond our ken. And this, I believe, is the meaning of the phrase absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Originally Posted by skeptic

It is a very good argument, but (sadly) not novel. I first heard it decades back, and it has been bandied round skeptics groups for that long, at least.

Not surprising. I wouldn't want to ruin my record of never having had an original thought!

Originally Posted by Strange

Not surprising. I wouldn't want to ruin my record of never having had an original thought!

I am sure you have had many original thoughts. But this particular thought was very creative and very intelligent, even if a few other smart people beat you to it.

as/re santa claus
perhaps, the irrational draws us closer together than any reality ever can
long ago and far away, my sons came home from school asking if there really was or wasn't a santa claus
I suggested that they write to santa and find out
one did
one didn't
the one who did , addressed the envelope "to santa, north pole" and received gifts in the mail from, santa north pole, washington dc.

never underestimate the power of ignorance to foster bigotry
nor the power of a shared irrationality to bring a smile to a childs face.

ESP is often claimed but has never been successfully demonstrated in rigorus double blind studies. let me tell you a story...
My adolescent son told me he thought he could read his sister's mind because he could always beat her at the game "battleship". As a test I had him play me. He beat me. Then I tried playing him again but this time I intentionally used body language and visual clues that were opposit to what one would expect. Essentially a "pokerface". He lost rather spectaularly.
He had not been reading his sister's mind, he had been reading her face and body language.
We decided not to apply for the Randi Prize money.

Along the same line, a quote from an old Dawkins paper I've been reading about animal communication:

Animals can, in principle, forecast the behaviour of other animals, because sequences of animal behaviour follow statistical rules.....[W]e may use the word 'mind-reading' as a catch-word to describe what we are doing when we use statistical laws to predict what an animal will do next.

why does my dog know my beloved life partner is coming when she's still almost a mile out?
can the dog hear her rock and roll or jaz music, the sound of the cars engine?
sense her energy field?
when the dog makes a specific bark, I know to open the garage door and turn on the outside lights, and
the dog is correct more than 90% (maybe the dog has a better average, and I just miss some nuance in dog speak?)

i consider esp on the order of a ufo-(unidentified flying object)----UPP --(unidentified perception pathway)
not extra sensory, but maybe using senses we ain't aware of----a generation ago, no-one thought that pheremones affected, or effected us("that was for lower animals") now, we know better. We can sense electrical fields much like sharks can, we just do not use that sensory-brain pathway as much, and tend to ignore it's messages.

when I was younger, I had a dog named doobie--------I was a bit of a traveler back then, and would leave doobie with my uncle mike klyaic when I headed out, and he said the dog would start howling about 15-30 minutes before i returned---------so Mike would put on a pot of coffee for me---and i showed up when it was still hot
I drove pretty fast back then, so the dog sensed me 15-30 miles out.

maybe crazy, but observation is a strong component of science----------------just, how to test it is a real problem---how do you replicate something that has a human/animal(emotional?) bond in any sort of double blind test?

anecdotal?
fersure
but enough to warrant keeping an open mind
what we do not know far exceeds what we do know
and, if we make up our minds about what is knowable in advance of knowing, are we not creating a self fulfilling prophesy?

Sculptor

Your stories sound to me like confirmation bias. I bet the reality is somewhat different. You uncle, for example would hear the dog howl, and pay no attention, but remember it when you turn up, while not remembering the times the dog howled with you not turning up. A false connection is made in his mind. This sort of thing happens all the time due to the strange nature of the human mind.

The reason scientists do not accept your kind of anecdote as evidence is because we are well aware of those limitations to anecdotal evidence. Proper studies are needed, instead. Those proper studies have been done and the result is negative - no ESP.

maybe
"There is no current scientific basis which confirms the existance of esp"
would be a tad more accurate?

long ago and far away, there was a sargent who would sneak off to sleep in the bunker (against the rules) almost every time charlie attacked, so I asked him if he had esp.
he said that he doubted it
saying that charlie always tried to get jobs working inside the wire, and maybe he caught a stray sideways(guilty) glance, or saw someone looking to see where the ammo dump was, or the sightlines of the machine gun nests, but whatever it was that he saw made him uneasy, and uneasy in his bunk, made the bunker an obvious choice. (his hooch and bunk had been blown up previously(while he was in the latrine---god bless diarrhea?)(lost all his underwear))
whatever his reasoning, or senses, following his lead seemed an obvious choice.

and, i thought his reasoning sound-----not an instance of "esp"

absence of proof is not proof of absence?

When the Randi foundation tests dowsers they place water or what ever substance the "dowser" believes he can detect, under a upsidedown papercup in an array of similar cups. First they test with the subject aware of which cup the target is under, then they test him with him not aware of which cup the target is under and then they test with no one in the room with the dowser who has any idea which cup the target is under. Typically teh subjects report they can" feel "the water when they know it is there and frequently they guess right if there is somone in the room who knows where the target is but when the test is truely double blind the rate of hits falls to random.

Not certain if I believe in EXTRA sensory perception as this means someone has more senses than a "normal" person. I do believe however in Hyper-sensory perception. It is possible to train your senses to pick up on small things that the average person misses. Like Sherlock Holmes or the characters on TV shows in the States such as Psych or The Mentalist.

I get the point that none of you is a believer...what about the us government research done in the 60s and early 70s about "viewing" other places? That was somewhat successful...one person "saw" the american kdnapped by the red brigades held captive in a blue tent...after his release it was discovered that he had been held in an apartment, but later the victim said that he was IN an apartment and IN a tent. A blue tent. And there were many other experiments about russia that resulted in reality...I've never had remote viewing abilities, though...just profetic - I just wrote that...- dreams and premonitions.

in a world of blind people
how would you devise a test for sight?

Originally Posted by sculptor

in a world of blind people
how would you devise a test for sight?

Easily. Besides, it's not a world of blind people.

easily
you say
explain

Originally Posted by sculptor

easily
you say
explain

As I said, the world is not blind. But let's assume we are testing a man that claims he can see inside an enclosed box without opening the box.
All you need do is observe the object in the box, take notes. Close and lock the box. Seat the man in front of the box and ask him to tell you what is in the box.

Now, let's assume they are all blind. The effect is exactly the same. Feeling, smell etc is all observation and can very accurately describe an object. About the only thing that won't work on is color. So, the same procedure applies.

try again without the box

and for someone who only "sees"
occasionally
randomly
unbidden
and uncontroled

Originally Posted by sculptor

try again without the box

and for someone who only "sees"
occasionally
randomly
unbidden
and uncontroled

The vague spewing suggests only that you're covering for an inability to show how esp must be undetectable. Hate to bust your bathtime bubbles, buddy, but it's very easily tested and we are not blind, in spite of how much you will insist we cannot "see" just to validate a belief you irrationally hold.

This is the only ESP I believe in:

it's the "extra" part that delineates the dilema.

how many do we have?
how many do we use?
how many have we trained?

other animals(and some claim "plants") use senses which we don't
do we have these "extra" senses lying dormant in inexpressed genetic coding?
do they activate randomly in some people some of the time? But not often enough to be studied well?

if these random events occure, then do we add these to our usually assumed "senses"
are there sensory reactions in other species of which we know nothing?

.................
the blind guy was just an example of the difficulty of devising/determining testing parameters, and should be easier because we do have the sense for which we would devise the test.............................
true?
................................
if
we truely knew and understood all of the possible sensory inputs utilized by any life form present on this planet,
then
maybe we could understand
"extra"

Sculptor, what you're doing here is trying to cast doubt on "doubt." You provide zero evidence.

Rather, you're playing at the ten percent myth.
*We only use ten percent of our brains.*

It's a myth because we use all of our brains. 100%. The origin of this myth is in the misunderstanding of the point that we don't use 100% of our brain all the time. We use what we need. We don't use 100% of our muscles all of the time but we do use 100% of our muscles, as needed.

Well, what the believers in psychic ability did was glom onto the myth and use that to cast doubt on "doubt." The idea was that we only use 100% of the brain and that leaves 90% unused normally that could be used for psychic ability.


As usual, the claims were based on ignorance, misconceptions and willful disregard to reality. This tactic is used when the believers have no evidence to support their claims but they still hope to establish some 'plausibility' for their belief.

actually,
I was attempting to come to grips with the dificulty of determining testing parameters.
and as a side note offered up the entire sensory catalogue, not all of which we've read.

how do you test for something if you do not know what it is that you are testing for?

None of the tests I've read about seem to have been designed well.

..................................................
If some species of birds can detect magnetic fields
Has any testing been done on a large test populations of humans to find out if any have this ability?
.............
or
the ability to sense electrical fields, as in sharks
Have you read of any tests for this sense?

what i am getting at, is that if we do not truely understand the whole set "senses", then assigning a lable "extra" to the phrase "sensory perception" = "extra sensory perception" remains undefined
so
if we do not know what it is
perhaps we could come at the thing by "knowing what it is not"
which
we also do not know

with all of this not knowing about the subject, how can anyone form an informed opinion?
..................
which leaves the other way of forming an opinion

Originally Posted by sculptor

how do you test for something if you do not know what it is that you are testing for?

Testing for the ability is easy and done regularly. Claiming they don't know what they are looking for is nonsense- Either demonstrate the ability or do not demonstrate the ability. Simple.

Originally Posted by sculptor

None of the tests I've read about seem to have been designed well.

This leads to the typical claim that "Oh the magic's left me at the moment, try again, later."

It would seem, neverfly that you certainly have a strong opinion on this subject(or at least your definition of the subject)

Sculptor

The answer to all your queries is simply this : If enough tests are done, then all the bases are covered.

Yes, people have been tested for magnetic sense, with no clear indication of any such sense.
Yes, people have been tested for electrical sense with ditto results.

There have been literally hundreds of test projects for various forms of ESP. Even if it was sporadic and infrequent, it would have been picked up if it was real. Unless it took some form that was totally useless, like occurring for a 2 second period once every six months. If that was the case, then ESP is functionally absent.

James Randi has also tested dozens, if not hundreds, of people who claimed to have ESP. Also with zero result.
James Randi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by skeptic

Sculptor

The answer to all your queries is simply this : If enough tests are done, then all the bases are covered.

Yes, people have been tested for magnetic sense, with no clear indication of any such sense.
Yes, people have been tested for electrical sense with ditto results.

cite these tests?

Here is a fairly bad description of testing human magnetic senses.
Humans have a magnetic sensor in our eyes, but can we detect magnetic fields? : Not Exactly Rocket Science

Apology for the poor quality, but I would have to engage in a more extensive search to find proper research papers.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Well, what the believers in psychic ability did was glom onto the myth and use that to cast doubt on "doubt." The idea was that we only use 100% of the brain and that leaves 90% unused normally that could be used for psychic ability.


As usual, the claims were based on ignorance, misconceptions and willful disregard to reality. This tactic is used when the believers have no evidence to support their claims but they still hope to establish some 'plausibility' for their belief.

Cold Reading

there is nothing 'extra' about it, one could train oneself to percieve more in others to give the illusion of ESP.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Professors have the tools to know a lot about students before the first class--especially now days where most of leave digitial information all over applications and in various places all over the internet.

When's a student going to ask him where he's published his research to support the idea of ESP.

My guess is he's using it as a learning tool to help students become more critical thinkers who use logic, objective evidence and scientific method before jumping to conclusions.

This should mean he couldnt repeat the performance if students are clever enough.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Perhaps he had rigged up video cameras to film the students writing?
Perhaps they were all paid to agree with him, as part of some experiment to show how someone (e.g. you) reacts to impossible events?
There are many explanations that don't require the use of unevidenced techniques like ESP.

But there are also many explanations that would require unevidenced factors.
Maybe the information was scanned by aliens and the put directly into his brain?
Maybe he froze time and read the papers while you were 'stuck' in time?

Which type of explanation do you think is more likely?

Our assignment was to research ESP and attempt to find a way to prove that his ESP is only a magic trick.

Try changing the circumstances of the trick.

Bring in your own sealed envelope with your own card with your name and a fact.
(Choose a fact from when you were a young child: something unrecorded e.g. You had a pair of shoes that you hated.)
Don't tell anyone - including your friends.
Then ask the professor what the 'fact' is.

If he complains, then repeat the whole process - but in a room of your choosing, using your own card and envelope.

You might find this link interesting:
James Randi exposes Uri Geller and Peter Popoff - YouTube
It is particularly relevant at about the 6 minute mark.

Good thinking.

how do you test for something if you do not know what it is that you are testing for?

None of the tests I've read about seem to have been designed well.

You start by doing what the scientists involved eventually did. You use magicians and other trickery stage performers to devise and run the tests.

What you are then testing is whether the observed events can be explained without resort to any non-natural or unknown phenomenon. So far, all such testing has shown that they can. There is nothing to be explained outside natural, normal explanations for people's abilities or skills in these areas.

Problems of explanation would only arise if people demonstrated that there was something that needed explanation. When and if that happens, people will look into it.

perhaps

Sculptor

I get the impression that you have decided that you want to believe in ESP and reject counter-arguments, not on fact, but on faith.

There are honest researchers who have spent their entire professional lives researching claims of ESP, and found nothing. Like Prof. Richard Wiseman. Richard Wiseman - Research

Quite simply, the data shows that anything like ESP will be of vanishingly low probability.

au contraire skeptic

I have not formed an opinion on the broad range of what is refered to as
extra
sensory
perception

I ain't sure what exactly "extra" means.
I doubt we know all there is to know about senses.
Nor, am I convinced that perception can be derived beyond conceptions which are based on perceptions
(cultural, societal, as well as personal)
which leads to not seeing that which we do not expect to see

.................
i see testing problems
when you have a charlatan devising tests to disprove other charlatans, you have a very self selected study group

so
my mind is open on the subject

and my interest is in the methodology of the testing

Originally Posted by adelady

Problems of explanation would only arise if people demonstrated that there was something that needed explanation. When and if that happens, people will look into it.

Paradigms COULD stop research into things that need explanation but are "blacklisted"!
Its not the case with ESP though. I think "automatic writing" hasnt been disproved yet.
Nor are they brainscanning spiritistic mediums. ( Perhaps mediums flee?)

Originally Posted by sculptor

I ain't sure what exactly "extra" means.

Yes, you are. You say so below.

Originally Posted by sculptor

I doubt we know all there is to know about senses.

Anything you think we don't know would be "extra."

Originally Posted by sculptor

when you have a charlatan devising tests to disprove other charlatans, you have a very self selected study group

So, Randi must be a charlatan, eh?
If a psychologist has a strong understanding of many mental conditions- do you then assume he must suffer from them all?

randi was a stage magician
The amazing Randi

.................and if we do not understand all senses, delineating
"extra"
becomes problematic

Originally Posted by sculptor

randi was a stage magician
The amazing Randi

This does not establish the man as a "charlatan." Please establish it.

Originally Posted by sculptor

.................and if we do not understand all senses, delineating
"extra"
becomes problematic

You said, "if."
Demonstrate that there is reasonable grounds to say we are ignorant of our senses, medically.

The word 'extra' means what usage causes it to mean. In the normal usage of the word in the ESP context, it means something outside normal physics and biology. So if it turned out that some humans could see ultra-violet lights, as birds can, that would not be ESP, because it is part of normal biology. Ditto an electrical sense similar to that possessed by a hammerhead shark, or sonar like a bat etc. ESP, in the normal meaning of the word, is sensory input from a source not known in normal biology and physics.

Does that make it clear?

"beyond physics and biology"
makes the phrase meaningless

Perception (from the Latin perceptio, percipio) is the organization, identification and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the environment. All perception involves signals in the nervous system, which in turn result from physical stimulation of the sense organs.

perception beyond biology is a dream

Randi was born in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, the son of Marie Alice (née Paradis) and George Randall Zwinge. He has a younger brother and sister. He took up magic after seeing Harry Blackstone, Sr and reading magic books while spending 13 months in a body cast following a bicycle accident. Although a brilliant student, Randi often skipped classes, and, at 17, dropped out of high school to perform as a conjurer in a carnival roadshow. He practiced as a mentalist at Toronto's Canadian National Exhibition, and wrote for Montreal's tabloid press. In his twenties, Randi posed as a psychic ... and briefly wrote an astrological column in the Canadian tabloid Midnight under the name "Zo-ran," by simply shuffling up items from newspaper astrology columns and pasting them randomly into a column.
.....
Though defining himself as a conjuror, Randi's career as a professional stage magician began in 1946. Initially he presented himself under his real name, Randall Zwinge, which he later dropped in favour of "The Amazing Randi".

a synonym for charlatan is imposter

did you look into the methodology of his dowser test
do you think that the method accurately replicates nature?
I don't.

Nor, am I convinced that perception can be derived beyond conceptions which are based on perceptions (cultural, societal, as well as personal) which leads to not seeing that which we do not expect to see

What we "expect" to see is the problem.

We now know that our brains are pretty well hard-wired to detect patterns which help us, in the natural world, to make usable predictions. Unfortunately, the problem arises when we detect 'patterns' that aren't really there. Two main problems.

1. We tend to overlook when we've been wrong in these predictions and we strongly reinforce our own opinions of the power of those predictions by remembering when we've been right.
(Helpfully our 'memories' are pretty good at reshaping our recollections so that our extremely vague predictions of a few days or months ago become specific, exact things which, in fact, we never enunciated clearly.)

2. Our strong pattern detection is right alongside an extremely weak intuition about statistical probabilities. We are therefore persuadable, sometimes downright gullible, when we are told that something is linked to something else - when randomness and coincidence are the real stuff of life.

And the less we know about the underlying causes of things, the more likely we are to link unrelated things. Look at the linkages made in superstitious, uneducated communities. Children die of infectious disease, crops fail because of bad weather, cows or pigs miscarry their young - all down to witchcraft by an unpopular woman or the next village along the river willed it or the anger of a vengeful mountain god or the failure to perform some ritual honouring one's ancestors or any kind of nonsense the group believes.

The more people are educated about the realities of germ theory or how weather works or the right way to treat animals the less they credit/blame gods or spirits or other people for things that go right/wrong.

But getting ordinary people to understand probabilities and statistics, along with very large and very small numbers, is something that still eludes us. (After all, a lot of people still can't understand quite straightforward things about human bodies - like how hormonal contraception works in women. There's been many more than one woman assaulted by a husband who didn't see why they should keep taking their contraceptive pills while the husband was away working for a week or two. The only reason they could think of was that she must be sleeping with another man. So how do we expect people like this to understand how the odds are stacked against them in gambling? )

well said adelady
ergo my interest in the testing methodology
............
it is easy to design a test or survey that creates wanted results
and easy to see the flaws in the methodology
but
only if you look for them

it is easy to design a test or survey that creates wanted results
and easy to see the flaws in the methodology
but
only if you look for them

Which is what the magicians did with the early research by scientists. Randi, among others, looked at the 'positive' results some researchers produced and told them they were mad.

Don't know the exact words, but it went something like "You're kidding! I can do this by deception. Your tests do nothing to eliminate the possibility that it might be someone with my skills doing this. I'll show you how to test that."

And that's how all such research has proceeded since then. It has had some interesting knock-on effects. Psychologists have since been working on exactly how it is so easy to fool others, and/or yourself, that you have exceptional powers as well as other more mundane stuff on advertising and the like.

Originally Posted by sculptor

a synonym for charlatan is imposter

Try to be more accurate...
Charlatan - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Quack or Fraud
Charlatan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"A charlatan (also called swindler or mountebank) is a person practicing quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretense or deception."
James Randi was very direct and open about the methodology and purpose- at no time did he claim to be "magical" with his illusions. Randi established the JREF, in order to combat fraud and charlatans.

To provide an example:
Sculptor is being intentionally deceptive in order to make his opinion appear to have more merit than it does.

Originally Posted by sculptor

did you look into the methodology of his dowser test
do you think that the method accurately replicates nature?
I don't.

Why do you think that it doesn't?
If you think it doesn't, does that demonstrate that accurate tests have never been done?

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by sculptor

did you look into the methodology of his dowser test
do you think that the method accurately replicates nature?
I don't.

Why do you think that it doesn't?
If you think it doesn't, does that demonstrate that accurate tests have never been done?

of course not

but a better test would be to go out to a creek valley where there is a shallow water table, and have a water dowser pick 3 places to pound a well, then stand with your back to the same area, and toss out 3 lawn darts(random)--------------then pound the 6 wells and see if the dowser beat random
then repeat
then repeat
then repeat
etc...

after a few dozen tests, a pattern will present itself
win or lose, up or down
publish those "real world" results
.....................
cups of water, or water in plastic pipes ain't what dowsers do
ground water is what they do
so, test them on that, and not on some lazy pseudo test dummy

Originally Posted by adelady

it is easy to design a test or survey that creates wanted results
and easy to see the flaws in the methodology
but
only if you look for them

Which is what the magicians did with the early research by scientists. Randi, among others, looked at the 'positive' results some researchers produced and told them they were mad.

Don't know the exact words, but it went something like "You're kidding! I can do this by deception. Your tests do nothing to eliminate the possibility that it might be someone with my skills doing this. I'll show you how to test that."

And that's how all such research has proceeded since then. It has had some interesting knock-on effects. Psychologists have since been working on exactly how it is so easy to fool others, and/or yourself, that you have exceptional powers as well as other more mundane stuff on advertising and the like.

as I tried to say
randi was an illusionist-----who better to debunk other illusionist
but that ain't nowhere near a non selective (random) group of test subjects
so
what you can say is that
"randi has debunked those with his skills"...........
If you claim more, then better methodology is needed

sculptor

Dowsers have it easy. Almost every site on planet Earth has water, if you just dig deep enough. So a dowser just has to pick a site at random and tell his/her customers to keep digging till they find water, and they will.

To actually test the dowsers abilities, you need targets that do not contain water. Since this does not happen in nature, you must use an artificial set up.

Originally Posted by skeptic

sculptor

Dowsers have it easy. Almost every site on planet Earth has water, if you just dig deep enough. So a dowser just has to pick a site at random and tell his/her customers to keep digging till they find water, and they will.

To actually test the dowsers abilities, you need targets that do not contain water. Since this does not happen in nature, you must use an artificial set up.

then you ain't testing what dowsers claim

ergo the "real world" field trials
It'll take more time and a bit of manual labor, but then you'd have real world field tested results instead of results derived from an artificial set up.

Originally Posted by sculptor

of course not

but a better test would be to go out to a creek valley where there is a shallow water table, and have a water dowser pick 3 places to pound a well, then stand with your back to the same area, and toss out 3 lawn darts(random)--------------then pound the 6 wells and see if the dowser beat random
then repeat
then repeat
then repeat
etc...

after a few dozen tests, a pattern will present itself
win or lose, up or down
publish those "real world" results
.....................
cups of water, or water in plastic pipes ain't what dowsers do
ground water is what they do
so, test them on that, and not on some lazy pseudo test dummy

You gotta be kidding me. Not only are you lending credence to one of the more absurd claims- Dowsing- but you're suggesting that to test it- you take them to water?!

I've pounded wells into creek valleys trying to find water
some came up dry
some had water, but not much and it stayed at the bottom of the well-pipe
some had water that came up near the surface of the pipe,
and a few had water that came up to the top of the well-pipe.

just because you know water is there, doesn't mean that every well will have good easily pumped water

ergo 1/2 random. and 1/2 chosen by a dowser----------
then chart the results
whether water was found(say set a limit of 35 feet)
and then
by depth of water found
depth of water in the pipe
amount of pumpable water
.............
this is a real world test, and not a fantasy dreamed up by someone whose intent may be unknown

only a fool would pound a water well into the ground in a desert

Actually the desert in Libya has hundreds of wells, all pumping out lots of water and supporting a major agricultural effort.

Even under deserts, you get water. You might have to dig deeper.

I am familiar with the dowsing tests done by the Australian Skeptics group. They used oil drums, and they asked the dowsers first if they could distinguish between drums with and drums without. The dowsers were confident they could. And they couldn't. I think a test the dowsers themselves agreed was fair, has to be seen to be fair.

in libya, the wells were drilled very deep, by their hero
who supplied water to green libya at a cost that would never have been done by capitalists.

water in a drum ain't a valid test
who goes out and finds drums of water to pound a well into to supply water for a homestead or farm??
It ain't a real world test, no matter what the australian idiots may have thought.

sculptor

The Australian test showed convincingly that the dowsers were frauds. Probably self deluded frauds, but frauds all the same. A field test means nothings, since water is always there. The Skeptics test was definitive.

ergo a test comparing random to the indications of dowsers

If you think a silly non-real-world test proves anything
then we ain't nowhere near being on the same page

the drum test only proves that the clowns who claimed to be dowsers couldn't find water in a drum
that is all that it proves
any extrapolation from that to the real world is pure conjecture
and nowhere near unbiased scientific inquiry

If it convinced you, skeptic, then perhaps you need to be a tad more skeptical

I told you that water ain't "always there":
"there" being under the 2 inch spot where you started pounding in the well pipe

Once, in the same 250 square foot space, we pounded in 3 wells, one of which came up dry and 2 of which found water, but only one of which was good enough to pump well--------------so, if you set a depth parameter and try several wells some will come up dry, some will find water, and some of those will provide enough water to be worth pumping.
And, every dowser I've known is only good for high water table (shallow)wells.

shallow well water tends to flow through the ground much like the veins in your arm.
poke one place and it just hurts--no blood
poke another and you strike a vein
poke another and find a capilary
poke another and find a gusher

sculptor

The bottom line is that the dowsers claimed they could detect water in an oil drum, and they could not. Thus their claims are disproved. If you think the real world is different, then you are accepting something that has only low probability.

Originally Posted by sculptor

in libya, the wells were drilled very deep, by their hero
who supplied water to green libya at a cost that would never have been done by capitalists.

water in a drum ain't a valid test
who goes out and finds drums of water to pound a well into to supply water for a homestead or farm??
It ain't a real world test, no matter what the australian idiots may have thought.

It is valid.

The point is whether or not they can locate water, not whether or not you can improve the odds in their favor.

Either they can locate water by taking a wooden stick which tugs at the ground when water is beneath or they cannot.
The point is not whether or not a dowser can locate the greatest and bestest well- it's whether or not they can locate water at all, so it's actually more than fair. Your idea makes it so they must not only find water, but find it under enough pressure and in significant enough abundance to make a really good well. That's much more difficult than just locating water.

a simple real world test with an equal number of random and dowsers would settle this point.

Do you not wonder why you ain't finding data on such a simple test?

you claim it is just water
while I suspect that it is more of an earth/water interaction sort of thing.

as per your claim--------you win
as per my suspicions, the test results ain't in yet

ergo
no opinion can said to be based on valid scientific evidence
just on conjecture from ill conceived test parameters
........................
eg
I couldn't grow a palm tree in a pipe
I couldn't grow a palm tree in a cup
I couldn't grow a palm tree in a drum
ergo
you couldn't grow a palm tree in nature

whose serving the drinks?

silly
true?

Some kind of Earth/Water interaction thing, that somehow turns a wooden stick into a wetness magnet. Riiiiight.

for those that think dowsing works can you tell us by what mechanism it does so?

Sculptor

I can imagine the problems of trying to set up a 'real world' test as you suggest. The thing is that water is everywhere. So you will need to get an accurate view of the depth of the water table over the test area, and somehow be sure that this information never gets to the dowser in advance.

It could be done, but it would take one hell of a lot of effort. For example, you would need to test a lot of zones for no purpose at all except to confuse any dowser who might be checking up. You cannot assume that the test subjects will not be dishonest.

I think it would be a real struggle just to get a detailed map of the water table depths over the test area plus all the bogus test areas set up for confusion purposes. How many millions of dollars are you allocating to this test?

On the other hand, a few oil drums are easy and cheap, and the dowsers were prepared to claim they could tell the difference......

The testing of dowsers that has been done by the randi institute was very fair. first because they tested just what the claiment said he could do. second they allowed the claiment to practice in the test area to see for himself if he could detect water or whatever, when he knew it was present. Only when the claiment accepted and agreed to the form of the test and affirmed that his method was working in the test format, was he tested in a double blind test. Uniformly, once no one at the test knows where the water is, the dowsers results fall to random.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Sculptor

I can imagine the problems of trying to set up a 'real world' test as you suggest. ...
It could be done, but it would take one hell of a lot of effort. ...

On the other hand, a few oil drums are easy and cheap, .....

yup yup yup easy and cheap science is surely the best science??????


....................................
I have no idea who the "test subjects"/"claimants" were who participated in these ill conceived "experiments".
I do know that the methodology sux
.................................................. ...............................

OH MY GOD
I seem to be more skeptical than the resident skeptic here
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
just call me skeptic junior

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Some kind of Earth/Water interaction thing, that somehow turns a wooden stick into a wetness magnet. Riiiiight.

(2x4 time again)

Wrap yer brain around this one baby
"Ain't nothing in or on this entire freaking planet that stands isolated!"

Any experiment whose sole practician and entire methodology seeks to test an assumed value of an action in isolation from it's natural environs is methodologically flawed.

"In situ" is the battle cry of scientific inquiry.
Thus it is
and
thus it should be.

Originally Posted by sculptor

I seem to be more skeptical than the resident skeptic here
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
just call me skeptic junior

Au contraire, mon ami.

You appear to be giving too much credit to deluded people - the dowsers.
My skepticism is directed at the people who continue to claim para normal powers, even when they fail numerous scientific tests.

Originally Posted by sculptor

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Some kind of Earth/Water interaction thing, that somehow turns a wooden stick into a wetness magnet. Riiiiight.

(2x4 time again)

Wrap yer brain around this one baby
"Ain't nothing in or on this entire freaking planet that stands isolated!"

Any experiment whose sole practician and entire methodology seeks to test an assumed value of an action in isolation from it's natural environs is methodologically flawed.

"In situ" is the battle cry of scientific inquiry.
Thus it is
and
thus it should be.

My brain wrappings are just fine. It's sad that your response to it questioning your supernatural beliefs results in arrogance instead of humility.

naturally supernatural
ain't life grand
who could ask for anything more

(wild guess du jour)
ain't no such thing as supernatural

it's just a lazy mental shortcut, kinda like using profanity
'tis the gift of a lazy mind

.................................................. ........
kinda hard to maintain a skeptical neutral stance on this field with you ramming away at one side
............just for fun,
how about applying your prodigious mental abilities to the other side for awhile
it's a question of balance
.................................................. ..
.........................................
long ago and far away(when i worked for the well man) I had a goat named panama--------he used to love to ram things(especially humans), and if you were quick, you could get something heavy between you and panama, and he would just about knock himself silly------he'd stand there waggling his head back and forth-------then wander off
..........
one warm summer day, i drug a couple heavy old congrete blocks down by the creek, and chained panama to them in the shade of a big old willow
unfortunately, the willow had a leaning trunk ending in a big fork about 10 feet off the ground.
I broke for lunch, and when I came out to check on the goat, he had hung himself--suicide goat---I guess that he ran up that trunk and jumped through the fork-----but the chain was too short, and the blocks too heavy----------so
we skinned him and butchered him and lived on Panama steaks and roasts for awhile
.........
damned nice goat, he used to let my friends 2&3 year old children ride on his back
the women and children went a tad crazy when i told them what(who) we were eating
.........
grok

Originally Posted by skeptic

Originally Posted by sculptor

I seem to be more skeptical than the resident skeptic here
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
just call me skeptic junior

Au contraire, mon ami.

You appear to be giving too much credit to deluded people - the dowsers.
My skepticism is directed at the people who continue to claim para normal powers, even when they fail numerous scientific tests.

All dowsers are deluded you say?
You didnt prove that ALL dowsers
are deluded did you?
...arent you prejudiced rather than skeptic?

Originally Posted by sculptor

naturally supernatural
ain't life grand
who could ask for anything more

(wild guess du jour)
ain't no such thing as supernatural

it's just a lazy mental shortcut, kinda like using profanity
'tis the gift of a lazy mind
.........................................
long ago and far away(when i worked for the well man) I had a goat named panama--------he used to love to ram things(especially humans), and if you were quick, you could get something heavy between you and panama, and he would just about knock himself silly------he'd stand there waggling his head back and forth-------then wander off
..........
one warm summer day, i drug a couple heavy old congrete blocks down by the creek, and chained panama to them in the shade of a big old willow
unfortunately, the willow had a leaning trunk ending in a big fork about 10 feet off the ground.
I broke for lunch, and when I came out to check on the goat, he had hung himself--suicide goat---I guess that he ran up that trunk and jumped through the fork-----but the chain was too short, and the blocks too heavy----------so
we skinned him and butchered him and lived on Panama steaks and roasts for awhile
.........
damned nice goat, he used to let my friends 2&3 year old children ride on his back
the women and children went a tad crazy when i told them what(who) we were eating
.........
grok

You say that you do not believe in the supernatural and that you assume there is a natural explanation that we cannot know about or cannot see.

Hate to bust it to ya, bud, but if we cannot see it/know about it/is completely beyond us (Solely to support your preconceived conclusions, mind you) then it is supernatural. You're trying to claim it is what it isn't just to make it more palatable.
It is deception. It is not intellectually honest. It's an agenda, a belief and not science nor testable.

Your whole spiel about the stubborn ram seems very fitting to your posts.

sigurd

You are asking me to have an open mind. However, I remind you of the skeptic's dictum : "Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."

When enough testing is done, then it is time to form a conclusion. The conclusion is this case is that the probability that some dowsing claims might be true, is very low.