Does the ideomotor effect debunk dowsing ?

Ask a dowsing question, tell us your gossip, chat etc. here!
Mick

Re: How does the ideomotor effect debunk dowsing ?

Post by Mick »

Ian Pegler wrote:
Clearly they've never tried to get you sacked from your job, but that's happened to at least one or two of our members that I know of.
It would appear that they were not successful, but why would they try to do that ?

Ian Pegler wrote:Then throw the pseudo-skeptics off Wikipedia, how's that for a challenge?
Freedom of speech is a thing that should be preserved. I would not want to throw them off.

Ian Pegler wrote:I see that within 24 hours my words are being echoed in the other place, so talking to you is a bit like talking to them, but if I wanted to talk to them I'd go over there.

So I won't be posting here, at least not on this thread.
What on earth are you worried about ?
User avatar
Grahame
Site Admin
Site Admin
Proficient
Proficient
Posts: 1388
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 5:52 pm
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Contact:

Re: How does the ideomotor effect debunk dowsing ?

Post by Grahame »

Mick wrote:
Ian Pegler wrote:
Clearly they've never tried to get you sacked from your job, but that's happened to at least one or two of our members that I know of.
It would appear that they were not successful, but why would they try to do that ?
Because it is their fundamental mission in life to convert everyone to their religion of scientism and they will go to great lengths to discredit anyone who dares to stand against them. Look at Rupert Sheldrake or Dean Radin for instance.
Mick wrote:
Ian Pegler wrote:Then throw the pseudo-skeptics off Wikipedia, how's that for a challenge?
Freedom of speech is a thing that should be preserved. I would not want to throw them off.
Then you suffer the consequences of having their one-sided scientistic viewpoint accepted as truth, because they continuously re-edit pages that don't fit with their fundamentalist viewpoint. You think you have freedom of speech on Wikipedia? Think again. See this thread for more information on the activity of the thought police on Wikipedia.

Honestly Mick, you really are being incredibly naive about all this. Maybe you don't get exposed to much of this sort of flak in Saskatchewan, but unless you are prepared to devote most of your waking hours into doing battle with these pseudo-sceptics (and even then you would need an army of helpers behind you), you're better off just ignoring them. Life's too short, and it's a waste of time trying to change the opinion of someone with an ideology to defend. Personally I'd rather get on with some dowsing.
Grahame
The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it - Terry Pratchett.
Ian Pegler
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3404
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 12:04 pm
Location: Aberystwyth, Mid Wales

Re: How does the ideomotor effect debunk dowsing ?

Post by Ian Pegler »

Ok, for the very last time...
It would appear that they were not successful, but why would they try to do that ?
Why indeed, although I wasn't actually referring to me, or to you. That said, I'm not going to bandy names around.
Suffice to say that academics need to watch their backs the most.
Freedom of speech is a thing that should be preserved. I would not want to throw them off.
A noble sentiment, but the pseudo-skeptics have completely hijacked some of the pages,
including the Dowsing page. Try posting about your dowsing experiments there and then see how much
regard they have for your freedom of speech. This is all part of an organised campaign of
control by them and they are quite open about it. Jimmy Wales is on their side so I don't expect things to change very soon.

Previously I suggested you might do some research into the history and activities of
the (pseudo)skeptical movement. Clearly you haven't got around to doing this yet. I think it's time you got more clued up about their history.
Read the Robert Anton Wilson book I referred to, read about Wilhelm Reich, read about Dennis Rawlins and the StarBaby saga.
It's the tip of the iceburg, but just maybe that way you will gain a better understanding.

That's all folks except to say that I write on this forum for the benefit of dowsers. It is after all
funded by dowsers, run by dowsers for the benefit of dowsers. It is not intended for the benefit of people who are just trying
to drag everything we do down.

Signing out...

Ian
simonwheeler
Copper Supporter
Copper Supporter
Proficient
Proficient
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:22 pm
Location: Wigtown, Scotland
Contact:

Re: How does the ideomotor effect debunk dowsing ?

Post by simonwheeler »

I've been watching this thread and trying very hard to not get involved. However, now I will say "Fair play" to Ian and Grahame for showing how dowsers are happy to discuss, openly, their beliefs and work, defending dowsing without getting drawn down into the sort of pathetic sniping that all too often has been seen. And, can I remind Mick, that while this is an open forum- as this thread proves by the way- it has been possible to either temporarily block or completely ban someone from it....such as happens on other forums where dissent and discussion is not necessarily seen as a positive thing.
It is far easier in life, generally I'm afraid, for folks to be negative than positive. This forum is to be applauded for its positive nature- welcoming those who question genuinely and with integrity. It's also worth remembering that many of us who post here are busy people....but people who are prepared to share the expertise and experience acquired over many years of actually doing the work.
Don’t be so open-minded that your brains fall out. LAWRENCE FERLINGHETTI

www.simongordonwheeler.co.uk

Simon
DarkChestofWonders
Beginner
Beginner
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 8:43 pm
Location: Hampshire

Re: How does the ideomotor effect debunk dowsing ?

Post by DarkChestofWonders »

Simonwheeler wrote,
"Fair play" to Ian and Grahame for showing how dowsers are happy to discuss, openly, their beliefs and work,
I would also like to add my support to that statement,

And this one,
people who are prepared to share the expertise and experience acquired over many years of actually doing the work.

Passing on knowledge and tips at Conferences, workshops and forums helps us all to progress on our path.

I totally understand the value of these statements, how would young people or apprentices get on if I didn't pass on any of my knowledge of my trade?
Sometimes things have to be believed to be seen
Mick

Re: How does the ideomotor effect debunk dowsing ?

Post by Mick »

simonwheeler wrote: And, can I remind Mick, that while this is an open forum- as this thread proves by the way- it has been possible to either temporarily block or completely ban someone from it....such as happens on other forums where dissent and discussion is not necessarily seen as a positive thing.

Are you saying I'm going to be banned ?
simonwheeler
Copper Supporter
Copper Supporter
Proficient
Proficient
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:22 pm
Location: Wigtown, Scotland
Contact:

Re: How does the ideomotor effect debunk dowsing ?

Post by simonwheeler »

Mick wrote:
simonwheeler wrote: And, can I remind Mick, that while this is an open forum- as this thread proves by the way- it has been possible to either temporarily block or completely ban someone from it....such as happens on other forums where dissent and discussion is not necessarily seen as a positive thing.

Are you saying I'm going to be banned ?
NO- precisely the point. In some forums you (or anyone who "rocks the boat") might have been by now. Read carefully what I wrote...Check out other threads in this forum. There are, as Mrs. Merton might say, "Heated debates". But, unlike in some other places, here you (anyone) are allowed- within reason- to state your opinions and engage in discussion. Dissenters are challenged here, educated by others, presented with cogent, coherent and lucid arguments...they are not- unless they are offensive- banned. Dowsers are largely a tolerant bunch of nice people. 8)
Don’t be so open-minded that your brains fall out. LAWRENCE FERLINGHETTI

www.simongordonwheeler.co.uk

Simon
Mick

Re: How does the ideomotor effect debunk dowsing ?

Post by Mick »

That's a relief.
patrick herring
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:56 pm

Ideomotor response

Post by patrick herring »

I posted about this in a reply in Dowsing in the media, but would like a definite view.

Is there anything problematic with mentioning or agreeing with the ideomotor response being part of the dowsing process?

I see it mentioned in wikipedia as if it explains away the whole thing, but I don't see that it does anything like that. At most it introduces a possibility of getting the wrong response through small errors being amplified, but the various devices act against that through the centering being independent of the signal.

Patrick
Ian Pegler
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3404
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 12:04 pm
Location: Aberystwyth, Mid Wales

Re: Ideomotor response

Post by Ian Pegler »

Specifically using the "i" word will send googlers scuttling off to website resources authored by pseudo-skeptics. Wikipedia is a pseudo-skeptical resource, written by pseudo-skeptics and they control the dowsing page too.

Far better to speak in more general terms eg. the subconscious influence on the rods, also more correct because that way you aren't tying yourself to someone else's understanding (or misunderstanding) of the "i" word.

Ian
patrick herring
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:56 pm

Re: Ideomotor response

Post by patrick herring »

Well, you won't get cooperation or understanding by being so confrontational.
If you mean wikipedia is by default sceptical then that's right, that's the way it should be.
I've recently got a chunk added to the dowsing page without any complaints (story about the
first water dowse - both relevant and charming, and referenced), and I expect to do more on the same basis.
The trouble with "subconscious mind" etc is it's unnecessarily vague rather than more general.

Ideomotor response just means muscle tensions from having particular ideas in mind, plus their semantic equivalents.
People don't generally know about it because they're small, below the normal threshold of perception.
It has a currency in the literature so we can use it as a fact, simple as, end of.
Ian Pegler
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3404
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 12:04 pm
Location: Aberystwyth, Mid Wales

Re: Ideomotor response

Post by Ian Pegler »

Well, you won't get cooperation or understanding by being so confrontational.
Who do you suppose I want cooperation from? In what way am I being confrontational?
If you mean wikipedia is by default sceptical then that's right, that's the way it should be.
No, that's not what I meant, and no it isn't that way.

The dowsing and several other pages are policed by organised groups of people representing or volunteering on behalf of atheist/humanist organisations in America, extolling a particular brand of skepticism, not true skepticism in the original sense of the word. True skeptics sit on the fence and never get off.
I've recently got a chunk added to the dowsing page without any complaints
So far it's lasted a week which is very good going, but you haven't said anything to sufficiently raise their heckles. Try saying that dowsing works.

Many dowsers have tried to modify the page but have had their comments deleted.
It has a currency in the literature so we can use it as a fact, simple as, end of.
This sounds like you're trying to curtail any conversation, it seems like you're now trying to answer your own question yourself. You were the one who invited comment, don't be surprised when someone does.

When you say "It has a currency in the literature" are you referring to books by dowsers?
patrick herring
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:56 pm

Re: Ideomotor response

Post by patrick herring »

The dowsing and several other pages are policed by organised groups of people representing or volunteering on behalf of atheist/humanist organisations in America, extolling a particular brand of skepticism, not true skepticism in the original sense of the word. True skeptics sit on the fence and never get off.
Ah, I see, I didn't know. I have come across the anti-advert wikicops. I think the context was pottery, where you can't easily mention a glaze ingredient without using a brand name, particularly in America.
I've recently got a chunk added to the dowsing page without any complaints
So far it's lasted a week which is very good going, but you haven't said anything to sufficiently raise their heckles. Try saying that dowsing works.

Many dowsers have tried to modify the page but have had their comments deleted.
[/quote]

Well, it's not a discussion board.
It has a currency in the literature so we can use it as a fact, simple as, end of.
This sounds like you're trying to curtail any conversation, it seems like you're now trying to answer your own question yourself. You were the one who invited comment, don't be surprised when someone does.

When you say "It has a currency in the literature" are you referring to books by dowsers?
Do you know any? I see the original article by William Carpenter as neutral about dowsing as such.
Ian Pegler
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3404
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 12:04 pm
Location: Aberystwyth, Mid Wales

Re: Ideomotor response

Post by Ian Pegler »

Using Google Books, I did a search for "ideomotor" - it is used frequently in:

a) Books by pseudo-skeptics
b) Books on Psychology and Neuropsychology
c) Books ABOUT the "paranormal" and dowsing, not necessarily by pseudo-skeptics but very possibly influenced by them, but not books by dowsers.

If you seach for the exact phrase "Ideomotor effect" (including the quotes) the pseudo-skeptical works come more to the fore, exactly as I suspected they would.

If you then search for "ideomotor effect" dowsing you still get loads of pseudo-skeptic books. There is a listing for Christopher Bird's "The Divining Hand" but when I looked up the book "ideomotor" is actually not there.

I conclude that the phrase "ideomotor effect" (as opposed to the single word ideomotor) belongs to the pseudoskeptics, although its original use by Carpenter seems to have been applied to an explanation of table-tipping in order to show that the table was not being moved by a ghost. Its adaptation by pseudo-skeptics as an explanation for dowsing is therefore a bit of a misnomer.

The Divining Hand does discuss the work of Jan Merta and his science experiments aimed to show that:
"one of the principal muscles involved in the rod's movement might be the carpi radialis flexor in the wrist area of the forearm"
So we can talk about these things intelligently without borrowing the i-word and moreover we might end up with a more complete explanation that talks about the involvement of consciousness. Bear in mind also that some dowsers don't even use rods, so saying things like "dowsing is the ideomotor effect" doesn't even come close to covering it.

I seen no benefit to the adaptation of pseudo-skeptical terminology in dowsing books/discussions and the end result will be the spreading of a pseudo-skeptical meme.
patrick herring
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:56 pm

Re: Ideomotor response

Post by patrick herring »

Thanks. I couldn't find the term in any of the books I have, including Elizabeth Brown and Arthur Bailey. They seem to go out of their way not to use it. The best quote is from Arthur Bailey: "The dowsing instrument is basically an amplifier of muscular movement." but that doesn't include "in response to having particular ideas in mind".

But I think it's too late, the best approach would be to agree, since it's true anyway. Apart from the dowsing wikipedia page it seems to be in the public awareness. I watched a recent Have I Got News For You (catching up!) and it was in that after Sally Le Page's exploits. Paul Merton made an intelligent comment.

A big advantage of going with ideomotor is that it establishes that dowsing is psychological not physical, and the experiments that got a null result were based on the physical theory, that it's a slight physical effect with abnormal human detection ability.

We're stuck between objective knowledge and the entirely subjective, in that we make objective claims on a subjective basis. Scientific Method can't cope with anything subjective (because it's one source of error) but they won't admit that that includes understanding language and anything that needs skill and experience like driving cars, in fact the normal world. The page on Qualia is most interesting.
Last edited by Grahame on Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply