Derren Brown - Ideomotor Effect Debunked!

[PsiSearch]

Well, as a believer in the paranormal and such; I'd like to show the most ridiculous video made by one of the biggest pseudo skeptics on Earth -- aside from Penn & Teller and Michael Shermer and of course James Randi.

Here is a video from C4 (Channel 4) made by Derren Brown and testing a Dowser, to see if he has some divine powers. In this test, the paranormal wins, and like most times; skeptics fail.


Why the Ideomotor Effect is wrong for Dowsing:

1. The "tester" is tested by Derren to find a capsule of water and it is buried underneath the ground.
2. When the mans Dowsing rod starts to shake, he digs for it under the ground; there is the capsule with a note - but no water.
3. Derren says he's been fooled -- giving no statement of the Ideomotor Effect. But, the rod was more intelligent to find the Dowsers non goal, as in there was no water; but rather a paranormal feat.

There is more -- just check the video out - you'll see my point.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rOqyMykIso

[caniswalensis]

Sorry, but I think you have missed the point of the video. There is nothing paranormal happening in it.

It really does not have much to say about dowsing at all. This is an example of Derren Brown psychologically (not psychically) manipulating a person. He controlled the dowser with suggestion and had him stop over the canister by design. The note was to show that it was Derren, not dowsing that led the man to the canister.

However, it is just a bit of edited video, made for a television series. It does not really prove or disprove anything at all. It's just entertainment.

Certainly, the Ideomotor Effect is not debunked in this video.

regards, Canis

[derrida]

[Arouet]

Yeah, PS, there are some pretty clever experiments demonstrating that effect.

I think you're a little too quick off the draw with shooting out the "debunked!" label on your posts. Maybe be a little less ambitious: keep your comments to the actual video you are critiquing and not the effect in general. And make sure you really understand what is going on before you declare that you have found a massive flaw.

[Craig Browning]

Most here know my views on this subject (my experience) and as such, I believe little "gotchya" bits of this kind are the sort of things "debunkers" and "skeptics" do for the sake of insulting and demeaning those that do have said SKILL set... this include deliberate misrepresentation when it comes to what they are doing and in most instances, what is actually afoot (which is not paranormal in my opinion, though there are elements tied to the practice that hint at such. This is especially so when it comes to the less educated and overly "religious").

While the magic lover/entertainer and effects designer in me would loathe to see it happen, I can see the more affluent and influential members of the Psychic/New Age community organizing and start fighting back some day soon; exposing the fraud of magic as an "entertainment" as well as the grotesque reality about an exceptionally high percentage of magic-based performers that are "womanizers", hustlers (con-artists), thieves, and just good ole fashioned perverts... including the whole sexual predator/child molester thingy. After all, the magic buffs seem to have little reservation when it comes to harassing and tossing every single person that practices/works as a "Psychic" or hosts belief in a more metaphysical/mystical sense of spiritual existence, so why wouldn't the antics that are good for the goose not be just as acceptable for the ganders out there? Why shouldn't professional psychics come to magic shows and show as well as tell the audience about all these things and of course, how it's all done; Iain Rowland encourages magicians to visit psychics and give them grief and cut into their livelihood?

I know, I'm on one of my grumpy old psychic rants... someone has to speak up for the oppressed

When it comes to dowsing, I've simply seen it do way too much good over the course of the past 50 years; everything from locating the organs, etc. where problems existed prior to any kind typical medical testing is able to confirm said findings... tracking down lost pets, missing persons and countless bits of "treasure"... the lists are quite extensive and to be fare, so is the list "proving" to the contrary. The difference is, those being tested are rarely those that have had the exceptional success. Typically, they are headline chasers and glory hounds. "True" Psychics or whatever you wish to call them, aren't usually high profiled people, the tend to be rather humble and very few of them charge for whatever work they may do (those that do, do so for a variety of reasons... and I'm not talking about the egos found in the trade... I, as an example, do Readings and Home Psychic Parties so as to augment my SSI income... which tends to be one of the biggest incentives to most of we old timers. Even at that, I don't see an exceptionally high boon, nor do the others)

Anyhow, I've got to get to bed.

[derrida]

i dont think ps knows how to use the word ¨debunked¨

i am going to start a thread called ¨PS Debunked¨
all those topics backfire on you

get some information first

[PsiSearch]

[derrida]

[Craig Browning]

PsiSearch... firstly, you didn't use proper terminology in your post; the bit DB was doing was supposedly testing a DOWSER not some demonstration in Muscle Reading or related techniques (I happen to do both... or maybe I should say, I did it for a long time, kindof hard to do from a wheelchair ). The thing is, you seem to be jumping the gun with certain things or, at minimum, not fully understanding (in this case, what DB was doing) what the subject & contexts are and thus, employ the proper terms for describing things and (this is important) clarifying your perspectives and/or reason behind the post.

Most of us here are pretty kick-back and get along even though we don't agree on certain issues. One issue most of us do agree on though, is to keep your posts as clear as you can when it comes to what you're talking about but in doing so, presenting yourself as someone that knows a bit about both, the skeptical/rationalists points of view and, if at all possible, that of the believer... Understandably, the latter is quite difficult for most who see themselves as being intellectually superior/savvy than anyone that might profess belief in various things, but then I've seen some very well known "cynics" express a softer, more tolerable side on things, from time to time.

I don't know exactly how to "help" you or, for that matter, if this particular post simply didn't "take right" (as you'd intended to express things) and given the opportunity, you can make posts that offer a clearer, more "rational" (not the right word, for the right idea ) in the sense of where you're coming from, etc.... maybe our being able to see more of you and get to know your "style" on things, will help circumvent this sort of OMG moments. Barring that, I'm more than willing to look over whatever you feel like posting and maybe give you some pointers on it BEFORE it goes public

[derrida]

[Craig Browning]

[NinjaPuppy]

As much as I have enjoyed the contents of the last two posts.... BACK ON TOPIC PLEASE.....

[Arouet]

I'm sure PS will be back to continue the discussion - at some point!

[really?]

[derrida]