10 ms·

I recommend the book Paranormality from Richard Wiseman: https://www.amazon.com/Paranormality-Why-what-isnt-there/dp/0956875653 https://www.amazon.com/Paranorma

I recommend the book Paranormality from Richard Wiseman: https://www.amazon.com/Paranormality-Why-what-isnt-there/dp/0956875653 https://www.amazon.com/Paranormality-Why-what-isnt-there/dp/... Essentially if any of these powers were true, they could be reproduced in a scientific experiment and then reversed engineer on why they actually work. There is even a foundation with 1 million dollar price for whoever proves to have paranormal abilities. No-one has ever been able to prove scientifically to have paranormal power and won the prize for decades.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago
I mean the one with the sticks should be really easy to study scientifically, just have a group of diviners with no prior knowledge of an area find the corpses or water or whichever. Simple to do, statistically sound, etc. That said, I wouldn't use water as an example; I'm no geologist but I'm fairly sure you'll find water in most places if you dig deep enough, there's not going to be underground rivers that are very location specific for which you need divining so much.
- Geezus-42 5y ago
  They have done statistical analysis on diving for water and it didn't go well for the diviners, so of course they made up a bunch of excuses.
- BrandoElFollito 5y ago
  The tests that were done were with pipes buried in an area. The 'divinators' (I do not know how they are called in English, the ones that find water with a stick) agreed that the test is fair. They did not find anything that wild be above statistically expected results. I will add a source if I find it, but it is at least 20 years old
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - matthewdgreen 5y ago
    A theory I’ve heard is the value of dowsing might be that it is essentially random. If you ask a group of people to find something using their rational faculties, they’ll tend to restrict their search to certain areas... all of which other people will have already examined for similar reasons. Whereas the random nature of dowsing encourages people to search more broadly. Sometimes a random approach actually produces better results.
- tokai 5y ago
  There's has been a lot of research done on dowsing, over a period of hundred years. You will find studies pointing one way or another. But no smoking gun either way. Its has tapered off since the 80s, cause there's not much reason going on with a field of study that cant get anywhere in a hundred years of work. Scientificality it is pretty clear that divining is useless. http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/Dowsing.htm http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/Dowsing.htm
- marcodiego 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#Studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#Studies
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hajile 5y ago
I've seen conjecture that there is a real science behind this, but it doesn't involve the sticks per-se. In order to use them, there must be a focus on the thing you desire to find. This creates a sort of meditative trance with the sticks as the "focus" when in reality, the meditation is freeing up the conscious mind to not ignore the very subtle signs of an area being disturbed. The fact is that they do indeed find bodies this way. The chances of randomly digging up a body by pure guess are vanishingly rare. We're talking at most around 10 square feet (often just 4-5 square feet) while there are 43,560 per acre or 27,878,400 per square mile. Even if you buried 1000 bodies in that square mile, your chances of finding one would still be a fraction of a percent.
- bqmjjx0kac 5y ago
  A horrifying alternative explanation is that some killers masquerade as magical corpse finders, contributing to that effectiveness statistic.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > Even if you buried 1000 bodies in that square mile, your chances of finding one would still be a fraction of a percent. Only if burying a body left no trace. I can spot where deer have pooped in my lawn because there's a tuft of greener grass. Digging a big hole and putting 150 pounds of flesh into it is going to change stuff that's likely visible to an experienced tracker.
  - musingsole 5y ago
    > that's likely visible to an experienced tracker And the GP's point is that this technique is little more than a focusing meditation for an experienced tracker.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      If that's the mechanism, we should figure out ways of meditating that don't involve charlatans or $60k fake devices (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651).
ComradePhil 5y ago
> There is even a foundation with 1 million dollar price for whoever proves to have paranormal abilities You probably mean the James Randi foundation prize. That was terminated in 2015. Also, anything not understood scientifically as of now is "paranormal"... and these people claiming to give these prizes are not truly curious and have these to prove a point, the point being "we already know what is there to be known". They always have gotchas and are not worth the trouble. If you discover things like that, you are better off looking somewhere else.
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  Dark matter/energy is not fully understood scientifically, but is not "paranormal". "Paranormal" are generally things that defy already-understood scientific laws. E.g. mind reading, telepathy, or "breatharianism". Often these phenomena fall apart completely once closely examined. A more edge case is/was the "Em Drive" thruster[1]. This seemed to hold up to scrutiny in a few tests, but further investigation showed the results may have been caused by subtle measurement error. I think it's really uncharitable to claim that James Randi is "not truly curious". Indeed, I find proponents of the paranormal to be the incurious ones as they tend to stick to their beliefs even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That's not curiosity, it's stubbornness. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive
Flozzin 5y ago
I'm going to play devils advocate here. We already know that the observer effect is real. We have no idea on what level the spiritual world is in. I would find it logical, that if we ever do discover that this paranormal realm we can tap into is real, that one of the reasons we ignored it so long is that, our intentions have much to do with it. So participating in studies to prove its real would effect how it behaves. Personally.. I highly doubt its real, else we would have more people doing this full time. There were also the divining rods that were bomb detectors(https://slate.com/technology/2013/04/dowsing-for-bombs-maker-of-useless-bomb-detectors-convicted-of-fraud.html https://slate.com/technology/2013/04/dowsing-for-bombs-maker...). People are crazy with what we will and won't believe. With varying levels of proof on each side...
- kaibee 5y ago
  > We already know that the observer effect is real. If you're talking about the quantum mechanics effect, then you're misunderstanding it. In QM 'observing' just means measuring something about a system. The only way we know of measuring stuff on a quantum level is by poking it with light or other particles. On the scale of quantum interactions, poking something with light affects the thing you're trying to measure. The 'observer effect' has nothing to do with there being any sort of conscious or intelligent observer.
  - musingsole 5y ago
    > The 'observer effect' has nothing to do with there being any sort of conscious or intelligent observer. If a tree falls in the woods and there's no one to hear it, does it make a sound? Science can't meaningfully separate any of its observations from a conscious observer. At present, that's the realm of philosophy.
    - mypalmike 5y ago
      If you rigorously define the term "make a sound", the tree in a forest question loses its apparent profundity.
nradov 5y ago
Trained dogs are pretty good at locating buried corpses by smell. We know scientifically how it works, but no one has been able to build an artificial equivalent.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
WinterMount223 5y ago
Not everything is able to be reproduced scientifically and reversed engineered. It’s not less real because of that. You may know how to ride a bike. Can you reverse engineer and explain in an algorithmic way how to ride a bike? No. Does that invalidate the fact that you can indeed ride a bike? Of course not. Edit: do not fixate on the bike. It was just an example. Write a symphony, create a joke, understand irony.
- amerkhalid 5y ago
  I agree that there are things that are true but not explainable like at the edge of our knowledge, black holes, quantum physics etc. But riding a bike seems very easy algorithm. All these self balancing scooters, remote controlled toys, seems like perfect examples of what you get when you reverse engineer bikes.
- staticassertion 5y ago
  Of course we can reverse engineer and describe how bikes work... Anyway, the fact that we can not formally prove all true things doesn't really matter. That doesn't make all things equally valid. We find supporting evidence, we build conceptual models, we test the periphery of systems.
- moconnor 5y ago
  Of course you can do that. You can even measure the angles and forces involved. There is no “unexplained physics” in bicycle riding. Dowsing for corpses, on the other hand, absolutely requires new physics, because the pseudo-physical explanations offered around piezoelectricity and people having different voltages are deeply inconsistent with our understanding of physics.
- croon 5y ago
  Even if you could not explain how you ride a bike, you could still reproduce it scientifically. You don't have to understand something to reproduce it, only what parameters are needed for reproducing it. You could observe the sun rising and setting long before understanding the revolutions of our planet. If someone can do something, you can reproduce it. That's true for bike-riding, but apparently not true for dowsing.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

I mean the one with the sticks should be really easy to study scientifically, just have a group of diviners with no prior knowledge of an area find the corpses or water or whichever. Simple to do, statistically sound, etc. That said, I wouldn't use water as an example; I'm no geologist but I'm fairly sure you'll find water in most places if you dig deep enough, there's not going to be underground rivers that are very location specific for which you need divining so much.

Geezus-42 5y ago
They have done statistical analysis on diving for water and it didn't go well for the diviners, so of course they made up a bunch of excuses.
BrandoElFollito 5y ago
The tests that were done were with pipes buried in an area. The 'divinators' (I do not know how they are called in English, the ones that find water with a stick) agreed that the test is fair. They did not find anything that wild be above statistically expected results. I will add a source if I find it, but it is at least 20 years old
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- matthewdgreen 5y ago
  A theory I’ve heard is the value of dowsing might be that it is essentially random. If you ask a group of people to find something using their rational faculties, they’ll tend to restrict their search to certain areas... all of which other people will have already examined for similar reasons. Whereas the random nature of dowsing encourages people to search more broadly. Sometimes a random approach actually produces better results.
tokai 5y ago
There's has been a lot of research done on dowsing, over a period of hundred years. You will find studies pointing one way or another. But no smoking gun either way. Its has tapered off since the 80s, cause there's not much reason going on with a field of study that cant get anywhere in a hundred years of work. Scientificality it is pretty clear that divining is useless. http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/Dowsing.htm http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/Dowsing.htm
marcodiego 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#Studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#Studies

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

hajile 5y ago

I've seen conjecture that there is a real science behind this, but it doesn't involve the sticks per-se. In order to use them, there must be a focus on the thing you desire to find. This creates a sort of meditative trance with the sticks as the "focus" when in reality, the meditation is freeing up the conscious mind to not ignore the very subtle signs of an area being disturbed. The fact is that they do indeed find bodies this way. The chances of randomly digging up a body by pure guess are vanishingly rare. We're talking at most around 10 square feet (often just 4-5 square feet) while there are 43,560 per acre or 27,878,400 per square mile. Even if you buried 1000 bodies in that square mile, your chances of finding one would still be a fraction of a percent.

bqmjjx0kac 5y ago
A horrifying alternative explanation is that some killers masquerade as magical corpse finders, contributing to that effectiveness statistic.
ceejayoz 5y ago
> Even if you buried 1000 bodies in that square mile, your chances of finding one would still be a fraction of a percent. Only if burying a body left no trace. I can spot where deer have pooped in my lawn because there's a tuft of greener grass. Digging a big hole and putting 150 pounds of flesh into it is going to change stuff that's likely visible to an experienced tracker.
- musingsole 5y ago
  > that's likely visible to an experienced tracker And the GP's point is that this technique is little more than a focusing meditation for an experienced tracker.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    If that's the mechanism, we should figure out ways of meditating that don't involve charlatans or $60k fake devices (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651).

ComradePhil 5y ago

> There is even a foundation with 1 million dollar price for whoever proves to have paranormal abilities You probably mean the James Randi foundation prize. That was terminated in 2015. Also, anything not understood scientifically as of now is "paranormal"... and these people claiming to give these prizes are not truly curious and have these to prove a point, the point being "we already know what is there to be known". They always have gotchas and are not worth the trouble. If you discover things like that, you are better off looking somewhere else.

AlexandrB 5y ago
Dark matter/energy is not fully understood scientifically, but is not "paranormal". "Paranormal" are generally things that defy already-understood scientific laws. E.g. mind reading, telepathy, or "breatharianism". Often these phenomena fall apart completely once closely examined. A more edge case is/was the "Em Drive" thruster[1]. This seemed to hold up to scrutiny in a few tests, but further investigation showed the results may have been caused by subtle measurement error. I think it's really uncharitable to claim that James Randi is "not truly curious". Indeed, I find proponents of the paranormal to be the incurious ones as they tend to stick to their beliefs even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That's not curiosity, it's stubbornness. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive

Flozzin 5y ago

I'm going to play devils advocate here. We already know that the observer effect is real. We have no idea on what level the spiritual world is in. I would find it logical, that if we ever do discover that this paranormal realm we can tap into is real, that one of the reasons we ignored it so long is that, our intentions have much to do with it. So participating in studies to prove its real would effect how it behaves. Personally.. I highly doubt its real, else we would have more people doing this full time. There were also the divining rods that were bomb detectors(https://slate.com/technology/2013/04/dowsing-for-bombs-maker-of-useless-bomb-detectors-convicted-of-fraud.html https://slate.com/technology/2013/04/dowsing-for-bombs-maker...). People are crazy with what we will and won't believe. With varying levels of proof on each side...

kaibee 5y ago
> We already know that the observer effect is real. If you're talking about the quantum mechanics effect, then you're misunderstanding it. In QM 'observing' just means measuring something about a system. The only way we know of measuring stuff on a quantum level is by poking it with light or other particles. On the scale of quantum interactions, poking something with light affects the thing you're trying to measure. The 'observer effect' has nothing to do with there being any sort of conscious or intelligent observer.
- musingsole 5y ago
  > The 'observer effect' has nothing to do with there being any sort of conscious or intelligent observer. If a tree falls in the woods and there's no one to hear it, does it make a sound? Science can't meaningfully separate any of its observations from a conscious observer. At present, that's the realm of philosophy.
  - mypalmike 5y ago
    If you rigorously define the term "make a sound", the tree in a forest question loses its apparent profundity.

nradov 5y ago

Trained dogs are pretty good at locating buried corpses by smell. We know scientifically how it works, but no one has been able to build an artificial equivalent.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

WinterMount223 5y ago

Not everything is able to be reproduced scientifically and reversed engineered. It’s not less real because of that. You may know how to ride a bike. Can you reverse engineer and explain in an algorithmic way how to ride a bike? No. Does that invalidate the fact that you can indeed ride a bike? Of course not. Edit: do not fixate on the bike. It was just an example. Write a symphony, create a joke, understand irony.

amerkhalid 5y ago
I agree that there are things that are true but not explainable like at the edge of our knowledge, black holes, quantum physics etc. But riding a bike seems very easy algorithm. All these self balancing scooters, remote controlled toys, seems like perfect examples of what you get when you reverse engineer bikes.
staticassertion 5y ago
Of course we can reverse engineer and describe how bikes work... Anyway, the fact that we can not formally prove all true things doesn't really matter. That doesn't make all things equally valid. We find supporting evidence, we build conceptual models, we test the periphery of systems.
moconnor 5y ago
Of course you can do that. You can even measure the angles and forces involved. There is no “unexplained physics” in bicycle riding. Dowsing for corpses, on the other hand, absolutely requires new physics, because the pseudo-physical explanations offered around piezoelectricity and people having different voltages are deeply inconsistent with our understanding of physics.
croon 5y ago
Even if you could not explain how you ride a bike, you could still reproduce it scientifically. You don't have to understand something to reproduce it, only what parameters are needed for reproducing it. You could observe the sun rising and setting long before understanding the revolutions of our planet. If someone can do something, you can reproduce it. That's true for bike-riding, but apparently not true for dowsing.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]