Forum menu
I was always told that absence of proof does not equate to proof of absence, but I'm not a scientist therefore my views are not scientific
My (non scientific) observations on this are that divining is an actually a spectrum of activities and is not a single method or target
I have seen it used in one application on multiple occasions and it yielded results where conventional techniques and technology failed. The social context for the practioners was one where failure would lead to ridicule loss of prestige and potential disciplinary action. There was no financial or other reward for using the non standard technique. None of the scientific papers used to in the references above directly assess the application.
I imagine the lack of a scientific assessment of the use of this type activity in context is down to cash, who is going to spend a lot of money researching something which has no obvious commercial application, and there are arguments that vested interests would seek to dismiss a technology that costs ≤£1
If the scientific community want to dismiss the practioners (who in some contexts operate in a results oriented industry) they need to do better than dismissing it without thoroughly proving what is happening rather than the current unproven hypothesises and sweeping generalisations put forward to explain
But as a non scientist I have no scientific credibility and should do has I am told by the totally unified scientific community
Sorry big_n_daft, nicely put, but STW only does black and white. Unknown greys are not welcome.
Please join the herd.
The majority of UK water companies still use dowsing, although one has just got a new dog to sniff them out and others are now using satellite imaginary and drones, interesting mixture of old and new
Well I'll give it a crack before I start digging the lawn up. Just have to find a wire coat hanger
I'll just leave this here
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P7TQMxMf6FQ
My dad could do it and my partner can. I can on occasion, but a bit hit and miss. They use a couple of L shaped rods. To clarify, we use it to find water pipes and electric cables, not water sources in desserts.
The most interesting occasion for me was when I wanted to find a water pipe in the garden. She walked across the area, rods crossed and I started digging. Two foot down there was still no pipe. She tried again, but this time no movement at that point. She then went over the area again to find the rods crossed where the soil was. So I dug again, still no pipe. She searched the area once more, for the rods to cross above the soil again. I searched through the soil and found a lump of metal ore, probably lead.
We then placed the lump of ore on the patio, got a reaction when she walked over it. Being a little curious, I then place the ore (without her knowledge) in one of three cardboard boxes. She found it every time. What was even more interesting, she got a small, but noticable reaction from the empty boxes as well, but not as strong as from the box with the ore. She could also do it blindfolded.
For those that don’t belive that it is possible, what evidence would you need to convince you?
Finding the pipe. 😉
…, not water sources in desserts.
Lemon Puddle Pudding?
(sorry)
For those that don’t belive that it is possible, what evidence would you need to convince you?[quote/]Positive results from a properly designed and peer reviewed scientific paper, by reputable researchers. Just like anything else.
For those that don’t belive that it is possible, what evidence would you need to convince you?
for those that believe it’s possible, what evidence would you need to convince you it’s no more reliable than chance?
Why do you think it could only be chance if there is no measurable reason for the movement of the rods?
One hypothesis is that it is a subconscious action of experienced operators, that isn't chance.
https://www.csicop.org/si/show/testing_dowsing_the_failure_of_the_munich_experiments
No better than chance if you remove the ability of an ‘experienced’ operator to respond conciously or subconsciously to physical cues.
Here's what gets me- I'm prepared to accept that there is a mechanism, hitherto unknown, that can make metal rods in the right configuration react in the presence of the right kind of metal, for example. But divining appears to be good for everything (wood or metal rods, pendulum, to find water or metal or gold or 'something lost' etc etc) and falls down there.
Even if it's limited to water, say, my question is what is it that actually works?
- if it's the rods on their own then anyone should be able to do it, and it should matter what the rods are made of, how they're made etc. For that matter we should be able to get robots to do it.
- if it's the person then surely they should be able to do it without the rods?
- if it's some combination of the person and the rods, then it appears to be an incredibly general mechanism working under all sorts of conditions and shouldn't be limited to 'one person two rods'.
Which leads to some.more general questions-
Does it matter what the rods are made of? Are metal rods better for finding metal? Is aluminium faster responding than steel? Does the shape matter? Thickness?
Does it scale? Could I use a setup made of telegraph poles to divine at long range?
How does it react trying to find a bottle of water buried next to a lake? How does the effect change with distance from the bottle/lake?
Does it work with a remote user? If i rig up a set up of rods on a machine in the search area, connected over the internet to another set a hundred miles away with a haptic feedback setup and vr goggles, can they find water?
If anyone cares to start experimenting, under controlled conditions, and get some sort of consistent answers to these sorts of questions then you've got my interest. Until then I'm afraid I'll be content to place it in the same category as other pseudoscience.
Positive results from a properly designed and peer reviewed scientific paper, by reputable researchers. Just like anything else.
We live between Penmachno and Gwydir, you’re welcome to set something up.
Not sure why I would want to be convinced that a phenomenon which is occasionally useful does not work and should not be used. How else would you find a pipe or cable without either buying/hiring a tool or digging a much larger trench than is needed?
We live between Penmachno and Gwydir, you’re welcome to set something up.
The burden of proof lies with those who claim it works.
We were having a discussion at work a few years ago about this. So we bent a couple of brazing rods and moved towards a sink of water and they move towards each other and cross over. Strange but it did happen!
Give it a go
The burden of proof lies with those who claim it works.
I suppose you’re right, if I was on a mission to convince the world that it works. I’m not, I just contributed my experience to this thread, and mae an offer of a demonstration if anybody was curious.
It is not an unique skill, a lot of people can do it. Why not try it if you’re interested?
I don’t think it’s necessarily the rod material that is important. Historically I think a ‘Y’ shaped hazel branch was used. IIRC it’s referrd to in Pigeon Post by Arthur Ransome although it might have been one of his others. I think the suggestion is that it is a physiological response in the back muscles. I’m a sceptic.
But not as aggressively so as many seem to be. 😀
YI imagine the lack of a scientific assessment of the use of this type activity in context is down to cash, who is going to spend a lot of money researching something which has no obvious commercial application, and there are arguments that vested interests would seek to dismiss a technology that costs ≤£1
Fundimental science doesn't care about how much things cost. The mechanism by which the rods move would be back vrry interesting subject and researched. The force imparted onto the rods would be easy to messmea, but nothing has been found.
I'm enjoying this.
It is not an unique skill, a lot of people can do it. Why not try it if you’re interested?
Lots of people can find water by using metal rods? I'm not aware of any evidence for that.
The force imparted onto the rods would be easy to messmea, but nothing has been found.
I think that the problem is that the force is easy to feel, but not measure. And it’s an explanation that’s not been found.
Lots of people can find water by using metal rods? I’m not aware of any evidence for that.
Why not give it a go?
Why not give it a go?
Because I'm not sufficiently interested to set up a controlled experiment.
And yet you're sufficiently interested enough to publicly deny something you have neither seen nor experienced as bollox. Go get em tiger 😃
I'll amend my earlier statement:
The essence of everything is curiosity.
The Munich experiments were indoors in a single set of conditions according to that link. It even acknowledged that most dowsing is done outdoors but cited the inability of the scientists to create standard conditions.
As a non scientist I think that means there were glaring issues with the methodology which at best give a "not proven" rather than does not exist. The issue could easily be switched to why were they not able to create conditions suitable for divining as why were the diviners not more successful than chance
The issue with divining is that the science community regard it as heresy to have even a ambivalent attitude to it. It some how is seen as a totem of some battle for knowledge. They cite the few studies conducted in limited circumstances on limited aspects of divining activity with the fervour of an American televangelist. The inability of science to explain by a known phenomenon instantly rendering any divining activity witchcraft, fraudulent or worse. As such they decry it, campaign to stop practioners and go for " you prove it scientifically" to non scientists, such is their fear that people stray from the true faith.
Most people who do it don't gain commercially from it, they risk ridicule and sanction in employment. Yet they and their colleagues are happy to use the results. Not one of them claims to know why, they as non scientists accept "it works for me" and make no further note of it. IF it didn't work they would stop because the social and employment consequences are significant.
Personally I am a pragmatist, I have seen it work where conventional techniques failed, it is not something I personally practice. I have no need to explain why or why it doesn't to those who do or don't believe that it gives any results better than tossing a coin. For me it's technology first, but if that fails I don't have problem with the person brave enough to try especially if they have a good track record
And yet you’re sufficiently interested enough to publicly deny something you have neither seen nor experienced as bollox.
I'm not denying anything. I'm saying that if it works, it can be demonstrated in a controlled experiment. Just like homeopathy and amber necklaces.
The ball is in your court.
Hey b_n_d, that's the second sensible contribution you've made on the same page. Careful now.
Ransos, read the post above yours.
Ransos, read the post above yours.
I have. It's a series of strawmen and unevidenced assertions. I can see why you like it.
As a non scientist I think that means there were glaring issues with the methodology which at best give a “not proven” rather than does not exist.
The whole point of the scientific methodology is to control all variables except the one you are testing - hence why its controlled conditions, Its the very basic tenant of experiment design. I agree when someone criticises the methodology for this then they really dont understand science. Secondly its no evidence to support as you cannot prove something does not exist you only get no data to support. Nothing can be "not proven" hence you have to "prove" it under experimental conditions. When you cannot the best we can say is no evidence to support. It may be fair if you run thousands of experiments all finding the same thing to conclude there is nothing there but of course you can claim its due to our inability to measure the small forces at work. This can NEVER be disproved .
But as a non scientist I have no scientific credibility and should do has I am told by the totally unified scientific community
you are perfectly at liberty to demand something they cannot do[ literally impossible to prove a negative] and then reject their findings on these grounds. Its slightly less rational than me dismissing your musings on a subject you admit, and demonstrate, you dont understand but you are free to do it.
* of course it is .
What was even more interesting, she got a small, but noticable reaction from the empty boxes as well, but not as strong as from the box with the ore.
So the dowsing rods reacted to all three boxes? If I was trying to convince people that divining worked, I don't think I would use that as evidence.
It does suggest that someone can use divining rods to point out boxes, though.
Do Ouija boards 'work' too then?
Wow, a lot of very cocksure people on this thread, based on tenuous reasoning.
I am a scientist of sorts, I have a degree in MPhys. And I am not prepared to say divining doesn't work.
- There is a large amount of anecdotal evidence which, whilst anecdotal, should not be dismissed out of hand simply because it's not done in a scientific context. I'm not quite some on this thread understand what that means - a rigorous experiment will only prove or disprove something within the very narrow boundaries of the method. You can't extrapolate into other situations.
- There's no point in trying to argue against it by asking people how it works. Most people don't know how computers work, but that doesn't mean you can argue against their existence.
- Who was it that asked if it works, why don't people make a living from it? They do.
- Don't lump it in with every other 'alternative' bit of woo-woo. Why would you?
- Don't try and explain it with woo woo like 'energy conduits' or 'vibrations' etc - you've no idea what you are talking about. You don't know how it works, no-one does. If anyone does find out, they'll need to be proper well trained and learned scientists.
So the dowsing rods reacted to all three boxes? If I was trying to convince people that divining worked, I don’t think I would use that as evidence.
It does suggest that someone can use divining rods to point out boxes, though.
Did you miss the bit where he said the reaction was stronger with the ore, and that she could pick the correct box every single time? Selective viewing of evidence? Some advert for science you are.
I don’t believe it works in the same way I don’t believe in Bigfoot.
I think the divining rods have less to do with “finding” water courses, more an instrument of distraction. What I do believe in is this.. humans are complex and have wildly varied abilities that we (us others) as mere mortals have yet to understand.. or trust based upon our own devised scientific methodologies.
I’m more inclined to believe that the holder of the rods has a mild ability to detect “something”, what that something is can be a water course or a pile of Opels, but to simply believe in something like divining because an old bloke is in a field with a couple of sticks means he/she has an ability is like saying all people who believe in Bigfoot should be taken seriously.
As rational humans we seek verified accountability and provable outcomes, divining can’t prove either way what “it” is or does.. so we question those that claim “it” works.
I think that’s rational thinking.
Some other animals seem to be able to find it, a quick scan of Google results suggests that it might be attributable to smell. Which isn't totally implausible, in my opinion. We usually consider water as odourless, but I can certainly tell when the air is damp, and I feel like I can smell the products of dampness if not the water vapour itself.
I'm fairly confident big businesses, being generally pretty pragmatic and focused on cost, would not pay diviners if there wasn't any evidence they helped.
I’m fairly confident big businesses, being generally pretty pragmatic and focused on cost, would not pay diviners if there wasn’t any evidence they helped.
You never gone to a team building day with a "motivational speaker". Or seen big business spend way too much money on some dodgy software sold to them by some shyster.
Big business used to use Uri Gellar to search for minerals and oil so the suggestion that they are doing it so it must work is somewhat flawed.
I’m not quite some on this thread understand what that means – a rigorous experiment will only prove or disprove something within the very narrow boundaries of the method. You can’t extrapolate into other situations.
WHAT Lets take Newtons laws of motion do you consider them to apply only narrowly? Gravity Evolution? You sure you did physcis? You think it only applies to narrow boundaries of the experiment?
Most people don’t know how computers work, but that doesn’t mean you can argue against their existence.
WHAT ? Someone can explain how they work [ the answer not being "magic" and also, fortuitously, being verifiable and testable] an no one is disputing they actually exist.
You don’t know how it works, no-one does. If anyone does find out, they’ll need to be proper well trained and learned scientists.
No offence but are you drunk? You started of berating science [ and the methodology] and praising anecdote then say science is the only way to understand it. That post spirals all over the pace and the only thing consistent about it that its a nonsense
In the old days when tvs were CRTs I could walk into a room blindfolded and 'hear' if a tv was on (yes it was muted). People thought it was a trick and didn't believe I could actually do it but I could. Only ever came across a handful of people who knew what I was talking about and could do the same. Turns out I just had exceptionally good hearing and could pick up frequencies at the upper end of human hearing where most people couldn't.
Perhaps divining taps into something similar that we do not yet know about, only available to those at the upper end of that ability.
My mum's a 76 year old lifelong Tory voter and she can do it. I really don't know what the fuss is about.
Having seen my great uncle find watercourses, drains and springs on my father's and other peoples land over the years I'm convinced it works for some people.
I can't prove it works. I can't postulate how it might work. I don't know how to design an experiment to even start testing how it might. But those who insist there's nothing to it just because it hasn't yet been scientifically proven are woefully less inquisitive than the scientists they proclaim they are should be.
A civil engineering colleague of mine swore blind it worked on a site he was on. So, when I needed to find a 20 foot deep existing sewer and no alternatives were forthcoming we got a diviner in. He told us pretty accurately where it was and how deep. Of course being a rational engineering type, I don't believe it for a moment.
I am a scientist of sorts, I have a degree in MPhys. And I am not prepared to say divining doesn’t work.
Quite right. And I'm not prepared to say that right now, there is not a teapot orbiting the earth.
But those who insist there’s nothing to it just because it hasn’t yet been scientifically proven are woefully less inquisitive than the scientists they proclaim they are should be.
Its been tested. It has failed those tests.
Now, as non closed minded sorts have repeatedly pointed, there are various ways that people might be able to detect some certain things, some as underground springs, and attribute them to dowsing.
However the claimed method of the dowsing rods responding has no supporting evidence and indeed there is plenty of evidence explaining why people think they work.
Its amazing how closed minded people are doing their best to ignore any actual research and then accuse others of being closed minded and not being inquisitive.
Erm, I don't think that is the case, at least, not from my perspective.
Youve told me about the research that has been undertaken and I've noted that the experiments proved in that situation, dowsing, or divining didn't prove positive. I am correct in that summary, therefore, I have listened and heard your points.
Others on here have also recounted their positive experiences, all of which were not being monitored by someone with a clipboard, and hopefully wearing wellies, yet the approach worked and they found what they were looking for.
Someone else has also pointed out that the experiments to discover its efficacy were limited and also slightly flawed, which brought into question the complete validity of the assertion that dowsing is woo woo bollox.
I have also observed those who have said to have seen it work have by their own admission say they still don't believe it or how it works, it just does. Kinda, a little bit more acceptance of stuff that we cannot truly explain at the moment, for whatever reasons.
Similar observations have suggested to me that those who are afraid of the stuff we cannot yet explain, are, shall we say, quite a bit more intransigent.
FTFY
Similar observations have suggested to me that those who are afraid of the stuff we cannot yet explain, are, shall we say, quite a bit more intransigent.
We can't fully explain gravity, but we know it exists.
The ball is in your court.
We can’t fully explain gravity, but we know it exists.
Ooh I think I know this one- isn't it that the disc is accelerating upwards, or air density.
Did you miss the bit where he said the reaction was stronger with the ore, and that she could pick the correct box every single time? Selective viewing of evidence? Some advert for science you are.
What's the difference between an empty box and the rest of the patio as far as dowsing is concerned? Why did the dowsing rods react to empty boxes and what were they detecting?
Most people don’t know how computers work, but that doesn’t mean you can argue against their existence.
May not be able to explain how all of the internal operations of the 'magic box' work, but you should be able to demonstrate some consistent behaviours from it.
Oh dear.
What’s the difference between an empty box and the rest of the patio as far as dowsing is concerned? Why did the dowsing rods react to empty boxes and what were they detecting?
No idea, but I thought it was interesting. It would be great if a Scientist looked into it 😀 I don’t think that anyone has said that they understand how it works. One frustrating thing is that it is difficult to differentiate between the causes of the rods movement.
As has been said, I’m not sure what the fuss is about, it is a phenomenon that many peaple use, probably based on personal experiences rather than reading a scientific study, but they keep on using it because it seems to work.
What is interesting about this thread is that it is so easy (and fun) to try. I can understand that most of us haven’t the means to spend thousands on decent hifi just to test whether £500 speaker cables are any better than £10 ones, and you’d have to be curious to the point of madness to risk your health just to see if homeopathy would cure a serious illness. Divining you could have tried in less time than some people have spent on this thread.
Divining you could have tried in less time than some people have spent on this thread
I tried it many, many years ago and it didn't work.
non closed minded sorts have repeatedly pointed
the problem with a "non closed mind" - an interesting term for those who observe facts BTW- is that the alternative is to let in any old shit and cling to the believe despite the lack of evidence to support the belief. I know which approach I prefer but if you want to accept everything that is false [ cannot be proven to not exist] that is your choice. I dont think it is a wise one personally
Its amazing how closed minded people are doing their best to ignore any actual research and then accuse others of being closed minded and not being inquisitive
I the evidence supported your view that would be a great point. As it does not it just looks weak and odd and like you are the closed minded one whose opinion cannot be changed by facts. I am happy to accept diving as true if it can be proved. you however are not convinced when it cannot be proved to work. Its amazing how many ignore the evidence then do weak emotive ad hom appeals - I guess that is all you have when you dont have facts to support your view.
Late to this, it worked for me and it really freaked me out. Got tested by a sceptic and it worked again much to her surprise.
Science is, in part explanation of observed phenomenon in the universe. That's the part that's missing from those who say it doesn't work because some experiments have failed to demonstrate that it does. They have failed to explain (or even seem interested in) the observations of many that in certain people's hands, for water in the ground at least, it does work.
They have failed to explain (or even seem interested in) the observations of many that in certain people’s hands, for water in the ground at least, it does work.
It's almost as though you waded in without bothering to read the thread.
That’s the part that’s missing from those who say it doesn’t work because some experiments have failed to demonstrate that it does
I don't think anyone is disputing that some people can locate water underground, and lots of people have suggested how that might work (see the earlier response from a hydrologist, explaining how he used his knowledge and experience to do it). The question is, is there any evidence that they are doing it through the act of dowsing? You don't have to explain how dowsing works, just demonstrate, under repeatable, properly designed test conditions, that dowsing can locate water (or empty cardboard boxes). So far, I don't think anyone has done that.
So, to labour the point again, it is quite possible that dowsing is a real phenomena. However, on the evidence to date, the probability it is real seems low.
And this is where I'm struggling with the denial from the usual suspects that dowsing exists as being possible!
Ive tried it, it didn't work for me, however I then called in someone who said they might be able to help and bingo! Where the rods failed to even stir a little for me, they became very animated in the hands of someone else, with incredible accuracy, which was finding a water supply pipe that went under a sizeable meadow, but we had no clue as to where it was. This has been repeated on two further occasions. So, from my own verifiable first hand account, dowsing is something I cannot do or replicate, however, I have witnessed it being both effective and accurate on three occasions ( all of which, there were no clues as to where the pipe had been buried or the route it followed).
So for those who bang on about it being psychic woo-woo, unverifiable unscientific bollox, I'm calling out as being closed minded and fearful. I cant explain how it works, anymore than I can gravity ffs, I'm merely accepting that there are some things which we do not understand, or our knowledge and understanding has been lost in the mists of time and our contemporary need to have everything explained by science. I don't believe the Universe is fully explainable from the human construct anyway. Completely arrogant to assume it does/is.
Anecdotes are not proof and it is not closed minded to say so. To dismiss proper controlled trials is very closed minded.
I'm not dismissing the proper controlled trials per se. I'm questioning their validity to a point but more so the resultant attitudes of dismissal for something when the results contradict many more personal (anecdotal) real life observations. More to the point, I'm also questioning the strict adherence to the results and conclusion by some people, when personal experiences are presented, and I'm suggesting that to be a little more flexible and less dogmatic might be a healthier approach.
Allow me to repeat the quote I presented earlier in this thread, from an actual proper scientist, and hopefully, it's gist will be understood this time around:
What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.
Let's make it a little easier: Humans are very good, but to assume what we observe is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth is astronomically arrogant.
This is really simple.
If it worked, it should be readily demonstrable under controlled conditions. To date it hasn't been, and as others have said "evidence" is not the plural of "anecdote." Does that mean it doesn't work? Of course not.
I’m just finding the ideomotor effect interesting, never come across it before, shall read up on it when I’m more awake. As I mentioned, the second time I had a go I really wanted to prove the dowser bloke wrong so I gripped the rods tight and tried to resist the twisting motion when it started, so I was actively thinking to myself ‘do not twist’, I’m intrigued to find out more so I can figure out why my brain still made those things turn
Here's a fun experiment, you'll like this.
Get a paperclip. Attach it to a length of cotton maybe a foot long, and suspend it from your fingertips like a pendulum. Do not move your hand. Now, concentrate on it and imagine it swinging gently left and right, left and right, do not move your hand. Do that for a couple of minutes, then imagine it stopping and swinging back and forth instead. DO NOT MOVE YOUR HAND.
Do that and then come back to me and tell me you still don't understand how divining "works."
If the scientific community want to dismiss the practioners (who in some contexts operate in a results oriented industry) they need to do better than dismissing it without thoroughly proving what is happening rather than the current unproven hypothesises and sweeping generalisations put forward to explain
...
So for those who bang on about it being psychic woo-woo, unverifiable unscientific bollox, I’m calling out as being closed minded and fearful. I cant explain how it works, anymore than I can gravity ffs, I’m merely accepting that there are some things which we do not understand,
HOW it works (assuming it does) is an irrelevance at this point, it's a misdirection, the question is IF it works. And the burden of proof here lies with the practitioners and believers, not that nasty close-minded scientific community. Once it's proven to work, then we can start to worry about potential mechanisms.
No-one with half a brain would contest the notion that there are many things we don't understand, but that doesn't mean we get to make up any old shit and go "I'm right unless you prove me wrong then." I don't understand how gravity works either, but I know with pretty cast-iron certainty that if I drop an apple then it'll hit the floor. Moreover, I know that if you or anyone else drops an apple then they'll also experience near-identical results.
If you're then going to argue that anti-gravity apples might exist because your uncle Dave told you he'd dropped one once and it'd floated* then the logical conclusion here isn't "hmm, I wonder how he did that?"
we bent a couple of brazing rods and moved towards a sink of water and they move towards each other and cross over. Strange but it did happen!
You managed to divine water where you already knew there was water? Have a think about that and then get back to us.
*
it's the internet version of the double blind design 😉
Have the people that claim ‘I’ve seen it with my own eyes so it must work’ ever seen a magic trick? You know, the sort of thing that Paul Daniels used to do.
And this is where I’m struggling with the denial from the usual suspects that dowsing exists as being possible!
You could try reading what people have been saying.
but to assume what we observe is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth is astronomically arrogant.
So does Heisenberg's warning about reality vs how we perceive that reality not also apply to the anecdotal observers who state with certainty that dowsing is a real phenomenon?
Local council had to find a pipe running under the rural road next to my parents house and to my mum's surprise they used divining rods, walked along the road, found it, marked it, cut the tarmac and even got the angle of how it crossed perfectly right, inch perfect. Keep meaning to try it myself. And I'm a real professional scientist with two science degrees omg omg teh haterz
So does Heisenberg’s warning about reality vs how we perceive that reality
That's not quite what he said - he wasn't making a philosophical observation. It has a formula and a mathematical definition relating to wave equations.
Local council had to find a pipe running under the rural road next to my parents house and to my mum’s surprise they used divining rods,
If I worked for the local council I'd take great delight in using divining rods in public to find water pipes, right after I'd just looked up where the pipe lay on the very accurate GIS map I had.
right after I’d just looked up where the pipe lay on the very accurate GIS map I had.
Not done much work in utilities have you?
Some people have a vested interest in making folk believe in things like divining and homeopathy as they are multi million pound industries, but they're not qaint harmless olde worlde fun, they rip people off and have led to countless deaths.
As an example the Iraqis bought two lots of divining rod bomb detectors for £52m (£37,000 each) a complete waste of money which led to false confidence at roadblocks and thousands of people being killed and injured in devastating car bomb attacks in Bagdad without the bombers being detected by the divining rod devices.
Not done much work in utilities have you?
I chuckled too 🙂
Sadly I don't have a wire coat hanger in the house, but happy for someone to come up with a scientific protocol for me to follow when I do get round to it and I can record the results. including me talking to the rods.
I have a soggy lawn and want to work out if or where a drainage pipe maybe, and then dig down to see if it is damage.
Its to the side of the house so not big, about 6m by 15m at a guess.
I approve of the use of a coat hanger, This thread has too many hands barely constraining too many powerfully quivering rods
That’s not quite what he said
Ah, OK, I've got the wrong end of the stick then. What did Heisenberg mean, and how does it relate to the debate about dowsing?
I have a soggy lawn and want to work out if or where a drainage pipe maybe, and then dig down to see if it is damage.
Skip the rods and just have a look at the ground.
Admittedly works less well this time of year but you would be looking for things like dips in the ground and patches of grass which are greener than others.
No one (at least I dont think so) is saying that people cant spot leaking pipes/springs etc in certain circumstances. Its just that the claimed mechanism of the rods is false.
I approve of the use of a coat hanger, This thread has too many hands barely constraining too many powerfully quivering rods
"I touch myself" was a song by the Divinyls.
Makes you think.
What did Heisenberg mean, and how does it relate to the debate about dowsing?
Well, particles can also be considered waves, right? But waves are looong things that cover a lot of space, and particles are small things that are in one place. You know the energy of a wave perfectly (a function of its frequency) but not its location - it covers a large area. So you can model a particle as waves super imposed such that there's a big blip in the middle and wibbly bits to either side. The blip is the most likely place for the particle to be, cos it's the biggest blip. If you add more and more waves of different frequencies to the model you get a sharper blip so you know the location better. However, adding more different frequencies means you no longer know exactly what the energy is (energy being related to momentum, if it's a particle). That's the trade-off Heisenberg noted - just to do with the maths.
The thing about observing is related to how things seem to be waves or particles depending on how you measure them. So if you do a wave measuring experiment you 'resolve' the thing into a wave, which means you know its energy very well but not is location; whereas if you do a particle measuring experiment you resolve it into a particle, which means you get more information on its location at the expense of its energy.
The concept of having to interact with something to measure it is called the observer effect, which is different. If for example you want to measure the voltage of a battery, you need a tiny bit of current to activate your voltmeter. And when a current flows, there a drop in voltage across the battery terminals. But this is inevitable in order to make your voltmeter work.
...so you're saying is it's all kind of energy, yeah? No need to make it complicated. And that's how the council finds pipes with coat hangers. Just don't ask for blind testing 'cause it's all uncertain. The end.
Someone close to me used to work for a large water-drilling specialist. He is the most ardent skeptic I think I've ever encountered, and a great fan of the empirical, reductionist process - yet even he admitted to me once that when the guys with the geo-wotsit machines had drawn a blank on a site it was then that they called in the old guy with the woo-woo rods. So unless they were paying money to the man simply for shits and giggles I'm going to have to raise an eyebrow towards the possibility that anecdotes exist.
If the guys from the water company were waving anything other than one of these
https://www.schonstedt.com/find-underground/cast-or-ductile-iron-pipes/
they were having a laugh.
…so you’re saying is it’s all kind of energy, yeah?
No.
He is the most ardent skeptic I think I’ve ever encountered,
...
it was then that they called in the old guy with the woo-woo rods.
I'm not sure as I follow the logic here. If "they" (someone else) called a diviner then it doesn't matter how sceptical your friend is? Or was that a gender-unspecific "they" and you mean it was your friend who made the decision?