Menu Bar
James Randi in Australia
Needs Plugin: Flash |
Not Working?
Retweet This
Share on Facebook
Email This
James Randi tests water diviners and dowsers in Sydney in 1980. This was also the start of Australian Skeptics. This documentary is part of The Great Water Divining DVD, a fascinating look into the world of dowsing in Australia.
Additional snippets within this 43:53 clip include psychic surgery, bending spoons and speaking with the dead.
Additional snippets within this 43:53 clip include psychic surgery, bending spoons and speaking with the dead.
Feb 13, 2009 3:57 AM
Re: James Randi in Australia
James Randi and Harry Houdini before him proved that the best thieves make the best cops.
By: scalpod
Re: James Randi in Australia
You've gotta know the tricks to see the sleight of hand. ; )
By: catgrin
Re: James Randi in Australia
Wait one second.... I am a big Randi fan, but most of this experiment was focused on the water divining, and those guys did more than DOUBLE random chance with that experiment. The gold and brass thing is thrown in, and those tests bring the results down to..... twelve percent, or BETTER than the random ten percent? What's more, why are these guys given their results as a group? If one of them is doing 50%, his results are being lost in the group.
I am a skeptic too, but my skepticism extends to the tests administered by skeptics.
I am a skeptic too, but my skepticism extends to the tests administered by skeptics.
By: Deadpoets
Re: James Randi in Australia
I think that this was a group of dowsers who agreed together to take on the challenge. The main question asked in the experiment wasn't "can person A dowse?" it was "does dowsing work?"
I agree that any one dowser with successful results (better than 80%) should have been re-tested to see what their results from 100 readings alone were. They all claimed 80 to 100% success, so anything less than that upon first test reads by an individual would suggest no need for further testing. (Dowsing is not a test of swaying the odds long term, but performing an action that provides an immediately predictable result.)
You're right about the 20% result for the water dowsing. I believe the other items were added in based on the claims from the dowsers that a liquid could leave moisture in a pipe that could be "misread". Unfortunately, this was either not the best designed of experiments as far as the numbers are concerned or clarity of the agreed setup didn't get through to us as viewers.
I agree that any one dowser with successful results (better than 80%) should have been re-tested to see what their results from 100 readings alone were. They all claimed 80 to 100% success, so anything less than that upon first test reads by an individual would suggest no need for further testing. (Dowsing is not a test of swaying the odds long term, but performing an action that provides an immediately predictable result.)
You're right about the 20% result for the water dowsing. I believe the other items were added in based on the claims from the dowsers that a liquid could leave moisture in a pipe that could be "misread". Unfortunately, this was either not the best designed of experiments as far as the numbers are concerned or clarity of the agreed setup didn't get through to us as viewers.
By: catgrin
Re: James Randi in Australia
The water part of the study seemed very well designed. My only complaint with it is that there wasn't enough data. The results were inconclusive. If they're going to go to all the trouble to build that elaborate apparatus and get all these people together, you'd think they'd do enough samples to be statistically significant.
Brass: 0/26
Gold: 4/35
Water: 11/50
They need to get ten times more data to be reliable. But if they're going to stop at 111 runs, we're left to conclude that dowsing for water works twice as well as random guessing, and that dowsing for brass also gives meaningful information (check the dowser's recommendation last.)
Perhaps instead of offering a $40,000 reward and then stopping before the results were conclusive, they could let the dowsers continually wager at 10:1 odds as many times as they want to until they give up and go home, or the prize money's all gone. Now THAT would be a fun day. The water guys would've doubled their money that time though.
Brass: 0/26
Gold: 4/35
Water: 11/50
They need to get ten times more data to be reliable. But if they're going to stop at 111 runs, we're left to conclude that dowsing for water works twice as well as random guessing, and that dowsing for brass also gives meaningful information (check the dowser's recommendation last.)
Perhaps instead of offering a $40,000 reward and then stopping before the results were conclusive, they could let the dowsers continually wager at 10:1 odds as many times as they want to until they give up and go home, or the prize money's all gone. Now THAT would be a fun day. The water guys would've doubled their money that time though.
