What are they? Why can’t they be measured in an experiment?
They’re shy.
I hope nealglover, jumbo and the other dogmatics learn to be excited about the unknown, unseen and entirely possible within an infinite Universe of infinite possibilities.
If you are open to the idea of infinite possibilities, them one of those possibilities must surely be that dowsing does not work?
People are not casually dismissing dowsing because they are dogmatic. There is no evidence from properly designed testing to support the idea that humans can locate water by dowsing. That doesn't mean that science says it is impossible. As you suggested, everything is possible. However, if no one has managed to do a robust experiment that demonstrates it works, it's reasonable to assume that possibility is very, very, very unlikely.
That's the beauty and excitement of proper science. It's the opposite of dogma.
lol, all that proves is that it doesn’t work in a controlled environment, which is **** obvious. There are many many other interacting factors at play
No it isnt obvious. You will need to explain why this phenomenon doesnt work in a controlled environment.
For example if we take slackalices initial explanation it was that water is a very good conduct for energy. If that is the basis for the dowsing rods to react then there is no reason (unless you have a trickster god playing games) that it wouldnt work in a controlled environment.
If on the other hand, as I have already commented, that the movement of the dowsing rod is dependant on someones response to subconscious cues then it would stop working.
The problem with the latter case is it will only work in certain circumstances with someone who has the experience. That person doing it consciously would almost certainly be more competent.
I'm finding quoting on here impossible with an iPad, so I just hope the speaker cables aren't immersed in water.
Lucky for the 8th Army also, that they figured out what Oasis' were above 😉 Perhaps they had a botanist as well?
Is the essence of science, curiosity?
Discuss if you like, although it could make a good thread.
Edit: Having just caught up on the last few posts, I think the more observant of you will have noticed that I've neither supported or opposed whether diving works.
What is not amusing me is trying to type in an ever moving text box. This site update is truly pants.
Well it may be bollocks in itself, but given that we need water to not die, and we've been on this planet a little while, maybe the rods just amplify our innate 'there be water there' twitch?
Yes it does work but the diviner has to be on a low carb diet. In the meantime I shall pray for the unenlightened.
If you take all the microchips out of your phone, guess what, it won’t work! So I’ve scientifically proved that phones don’t work, right?
No, you have demonstrated that a mobile phone without microchips doesn't work. It's a valid experiment, but probably not going to win you any Nobel prizes.
Yes it does work but the diviner has to be on a low carb diet.
Only if you use directional rods.
How is this tricky to understand? "Experienced surveyor uses subconscious cues and ideomotor effect to identify water source" doesn't sound exciting but it's how the silly sticks move. Not difficult but not "magic energy" either. Anyone using it to trace a pipe that doesn't leak is talking bollocks though...
I was sceptical that so many people on here believe it needs imaginary pixies to guide the rods, but then again stupidity obviously isn't confined to Brexit voters.
This thread explains a lot about this forum
Is the essence of science, curiosity?
Discuss if you like, although it could make a good thread.
yep. Which is why numerous studies have been carried out and all comprehensively failed to show any better success than chance.
How many more studies would it take for you to believe it’s not true?
Who’s the dogmatic one?
Any thread that involves dogma of any sort = the same result.
Tested and proven in established testing environment and conditions. Science fact that is.
Not one pixie was harmed either.
As you are.
Next time I read a thread where people are spouting complete nonsense and steadfastly won’t accept a scientifically sound statement, I’ll think of this thread and think twice about bothering to contribute. No point arguing with idiots etc etc 😜
Don’t all rush over at once, but someone has just put up for sale some magic beans over in classified.
Any thread that involves dogma of any sort = the same result.
If nothing else works, a total pigheaded unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
If divining was such a success, then shirley those that practice it would be able to forecast or predict the money markets and seek a more financially secure lifestyle than walking around a field in wellies smelling of cow shit, whilst cloaked in a grey beard, a hooded trench coat, some crystals hanging from a chain around their necks, covered in symbolic tattooed symbols, whilst facing East and waiting for the sun to rise on the solstice..
Shear bunkum and yet you pay these people your hard earned cash to walk amongst the general public..
wtf? In the same way that being good on an MTB also makes you an expert particle physicist? How are they even related?! Some proper nonsense being spouted by the sheeple on this thread, great for a Friday night laugh! Keep it up lads 😂😂😂If divining was such a success, then shirley those that practice it would be able to forecast or predict the money markets
Jibes aside for a moment, is anyone above that thinks divining works, either a scientist, or have genuine scientific training (let’s say degree level or above in a genuine science, as a minimum exposure to genuine scientific understanding)? If yes, what discipline do you work in?
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
I find the larger placebo pills work better.
So have you changed your mind on this over the course of the thread?
Me? No, as stated before I don’t believe in it (for finding water or anything else) I just didn’t know what caused the rods to turn in my hand
Crikey, that's being really resolute Houns, you're nearly as good as me 😂
What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.
courtesy of a Werner Heisenberg
No doubt some smart Alec will be along to dismiss this seemingly eminent theoretical physicist and his pioneering work in quantum mechanics. He reckoned if you kept looking, you'll find God too.
Like, wow!
Gripping them too hard?
If you backtrack any quicker slackalice you might turn back time like Christoper Reeves did in Superman I.
dismiss this seemingly eminent theoretical physicist and his pioneering work in quantum mechanics.
Drug dealing scum 😉
Tested and proven in established testing environment and conditions. Science fact that is.
So the interesting thing is that not only has every properly conducted experiment proven that it does not work, science can also explain why it appears to work (a combination of the ideomotor effect and confirmation bias).
Until recently there was $1m up for grabs for anyone who could prove that it did work - all you had to do was arrange your "established testing environment and conditions" into a properly conducted experiment. Yet even with $1m at stake, nobody could do it.
wtf? In the same way that being good on an MTB also makes you an expert particle physicist? How are they even related?! Some proper nonsense being spouted by the sheeple on this thread, great for a Friday night laugh! Keep it up lads
We will, you seem stuck in the age of mystics and warlocks..
Carry on, we need to out each one of you.
I personally think it’s an idiomotor response. However, my father in law who worked in farming and building in rural Cornwall for 50 years recounts stories of the local dowser who had a good living finding water sources and digging wells. I suspect he just knew where the groundwater was in the local area.
What I find less easy to explain is that if my father in law draws an imaginary line in the garden (can’t be seen) my wife can find it with dowsing rods. If he draws several lines she can find them, but if he crosses one out and she doesn’t know which one, then she can’t detect it.
I tell them it’s a scam they’re playing on me, but I honestly don’t think it is... I can’t make the damn things work for me.
Another total sceptic who tried it begrudgingly, I have no idea what makes them move, it certainly wasn’t me.
edit to add, I still don’t believe them, just haven’t a clue what made the wires twitch and cross
I could not be more sceptical either, but was shown and tried it once too. I am unsure if they moved towards water, but definitely felt like they moved of their own accord. I do not know what was going on, but I left bemused.
lol, all that proves is that it doesn’t work in a controlled environment, which is **** obvious. There are many many other interacting factors at play. If you take all the microchips out of your phone, guess what, it won’t work! So I’ve scientifically proved that phones don’t work, right? You couldn’t make it up 😂
I can explain really easily why my phone doesn’t work if I take all the important parts out of it.
Can you explain why people with bent metal rods have never managed to get it to work for an organised scientific audience?
(Its a rhetorical question. Of course you can’t)
I tell them it’s a scam they’re playing on me, but I honestly don’t think it is
You need to set up a proper experiment. Something along the lines of:
Observer one watches your FIL place the lines and records it (with your wife and observer two nowhere in sight). Ensure the line position is chosen randomly and definitely not by FIL.
Observer two watches your wife find them (with FIL and observer one nowhere in sight)
Repeat multiple times with only those people involved eg you cant watch throughout. Oh and make sure the observers arent bribeble/find it funny to confuse you.
If you get it properly blinded then you will probably end up with a good test.
I've done it twice. Worked both times. Dunno why.
But do you believe it worked through some energy as yet undetectable to known science, or by luck, or some unrelated factor (subconsious influence by the user)?
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.
