MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
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.
All that that is proof of is that people make irrational decisions. Just because you are in charge of a large company doesn’t mean you will always be rational. Besides if this guy is so good and reliable, why go to the expense of the fancy equipment?
Definitely doesn't work ≠ no good evidence that it works.
True, but that doesn't mean we can conclude it works either.
True, but that doesn’t mean we can conclude it works either.
Err, that was my point! No scientist would say that it's impossible for divining to work, simply that there is no good evidence that it does. And the burden of proof lies with those making the claim.
I reckon it's slightly more plausible than Russell's teapot. Maybe.
Err, that was my point! No scientist would say that it’s impossible for divining to work, simply that there is no good evidence that it does.
I think there is evidence that it does (anecdotal evidence is still evidence, albeit not proof), and that some studies may have failed to prove it but that does not mean they succeeded in disproving it, because the nailing down of the test environment may end up excluding whatever it is that might make it work.
Given that we don't know what it even is or how it might work, it's rather difficult to provide good experimental conditions.
Also, given that most scientists know a little bit of history of science, they are well aware of the numerous instances of someone discovering something weird, being scoffed at by the oh-so-confident establishment, and ending up being right and that the establishment didn't know anything like as much as it thought it did. Humility is important for scientists!
What strikes me as odd, is a technique with that power, if real, would be one of the most powerful tools known to man.
If it truly did work, wouldn't we be taught it in schools? Alongside maths, physics, chemistry and dowsing?
If it truly did work, it would be one of the most significant technologies at our disposal. Locate (seemingly (See people locating ore in boxes)) anything you want for next to free, without the need for complex technology or training?
If it truly worked, we'd all be running around with a set of dowsing rods in our pocket just in case you misplaced your keys. You'd have dowsing rods for sale in Tesco. They'd be EVERYWHERE.
Something with that 'power' would be widespread and used in every conceivable field. Not sure what's wrong with your patient? Dowsing rod up and down the body until you they cross over indicating where the issue is.
It would be one of the corner stones of modern science.
Yet the first time I heard of it in my 29 years on this planet was from the Medium piece on outrage that water utility companies still use the technique.
And yet, here we have Keith, from Somerset, wandering up and down fields talking to two bent wires.
Occam's razor:
Theory A: There is some unmeasurable to science, perhaps supernatural or magical, force or energy guiding the rods to detect flowing water.
Theory B: It's actually just super hard to remain perfectly steady when holding two long wires, this makes them move. Confirmation bias does the rest.
anecdotal evidence is still evidence
You are Lionel Hutz and I claim my five pounds.
Well, particles can also be considered waves, right....
But what does the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Observer Effect have to do with scientific testing of dowsing?
Are you suggesting dowsing doesn't work if it is observed in a systematic way?
I think there is evidence that it does (anecdotal evidence is still evidence, albeit not proof),
Which is what I said. There is no <span style="text-decoration: underline;">good</span> evidence.
some studies may have failed to prove it but that does not mean they succeeded in disproving it
You mean that they failed to prove a negative? Do we really have to start talking about celestial teapots again?
Which is what I said. There is no good evidence.
So you don't think the huge amount of anecdotal evidence is worth anything at all?
But what does the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Observer Effect have to do with scientific testing of dowsing?
Nothing at all - that was my point 🙂
Are you suggesting dowsing doesn’t work if it is observed in a systematic way?
No, I'm saying that in trying to eliminate variables and outside influences in a way that is essential for a rigorous experiment, they may have removed the thing that makes it work. Because they don't know what that thing is.
Do we really have to start talking about celestial teapots again?
I found Russell's original paragraph referencing the teapot on Wiki. This is his actual point:
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
What he's saying is that simply because something cannot be disproved is no reason to argue that it must be true. I'm not arguing that divining is true - I have no idea - but you also cannot yet prove it is false. So we are in a state of not knowing. There are plenty of deniers making unequivocal statements on this thread, and I think that is rash - and invoking Russell is not really wise since he is criticising the making of such statements.
The teapot is not important in his quote - but it is a slightly different proposition anyway. He wanted to illustrate something unprovable. Divining is not unprovable, since it is a verifiable (or otherwise) act. The teapot is meant to be an unverifiable concept, which is different. Homeopathy is different also (it was compared on the first page) since it is not possible to isolate its effects - a human has a complex and not perfectly understood immune system that could be doing the job of the homeopathic 'medicine', so it is impossible to isolate the effect of the medicine. So people might get better on their own. A man with a shovel is very unlikely to randomly find the water pipe over and over again on his own, so the effect of the diviner should be very easy to spot.
Given that we don’t know what it even is or how it might work, it’s rather difficult to provide good experimental conditions.
How convenient. Given though that people are claiming, even just on this thread, that it works for everything from water to stones (or just the memory of stones in boxes) its rather odd that the one time it would fail is when its actually being studied.
Humility is important for scientists!
Its also important for others. Particularly those who are dismissing the scientific method based on special pleading.
…so you’re saying is it’s all kind of energy, yeah?
No.
Oh I think you are. (I'm working without smileys here, though I do make a convincing idiot). I always enjoy the trope of non-physicists invoking quantum mechanics to mean 'kind of mysterious' , quite understandably not wanting to engage with attendant equations and hard sums.
The wikipedia article says this:
Psychologist David Marks in a 1986 article in <i>Nature</i> included dowsing in a list of "effects which until recently were claimed to be paranormal but which can now be explained from within orthodox science."<sup id="cite_ref-marks1986_79-0" class="reference">[79]</sup> Specifically, dowsing could be explained in terms of sensory cues, expectancy effects and probability
So dowsing or divining for water could be explained by people reading cues about the location of water - to me, that means it DOES work. It doesn't have to be anything magical - what's important is whether or not they can find the water.
Its also important for others. Particularly those who are dismissing the scientific method based on special pleading.
Is that what you think I'm doing? I'm very keen on the scientific method. Criticising or finding fault with others' experiments is a core activity in science. What I am doing is pointing out a possible reason why the experiments might have failed. I'm not asserting that they DID fail, in fact I'm not asserting anything except that it is rash to dismiss the whole thing out of hand.
Given though that people are claiming, even just on this thread, that it works for everything from water to stones (or just the memory of stones in boxes) its rather odd that the one time it would fail is when its actually being studied.
And yet, it is being used daily in real world situations. Something is clearly going on, even if it's something mundane like being able to smell water.
in fact I’m not asserting anything except that it is rash to dismiss the whole thing out of hand.
I think thats tactic 5 from the homeopaths and other woosters handbook. Claim that for some reason proper tests stop working and therefore it cant be dismissed out of hand.
Given there are perfectly sensible explanations for some peoples seeming ability to use dowsing rods (eg that they pick up on cues in the landscape and the ideomotor effect) why be so defensive over it?
And yet, it is being used daily in real world situations.
By that measure are you a fan of astrology?
Something is clearly going on, even if it’s something mundane like being able to smell water.
Then we can test for that. In the same way we can test for someone picking up other environmental cues.
However the claim being made is for dowsing in the standard sense of using dowsing sticks
just looked up where the pipe lay on the very accurate GIS map I had
You clearly have no understanding of what you're trying to talk about.
Yours etc
GIS professional
So you don’t think the huge amount of anecdotal evidence is worth anything at all?
In terms of suggesting that further investigation may have merit? Yes.
In terms of providing a shred of proof / evidence? No.
There is no such thing as "anecdotal evidence." There is evidence, and there are anecdotes. See also, "alternative medicine."
I’m saying that in trying to eliminate variables and outside influences in a way that is essential for a rigorous experiment, they may have removed the thing that makes it work.
As someone else said, my immediate reaction to this was also "how convenient." That said, there's still validity in this test. If you can provide a scenario where it reliably doesn't work, and another where it reliably does work (assuming for argument's sake that you can), then it's a simple matter of reduction to ascertain how it works by deducing which variable change makes it fail.
tl;dr
No
No, I’m saying that in trying to eliminate variables and outside influences in a way that is essential for a rigorous experiment, they may have removed the thing that makes it work. Because they don’t know what that thing is.
That really does sound like another way of saying dowsing doesn't work if you observe it systematically.
You don't need to know what the essential "thing" for dowsing is, though. If you remove variables and outside influences progressively, in a systematic way, there will be a point where dowsing no longer works under proper test conditions. At that point you will have identified the magic.
By that measure are you a fan of astrology?
That has been disproven to my satisfaction.
As someone else said, my immediate reaction to this was also “how convenient.”
Science does not care about your gut feelings 🙂
Then we can test for that. In the same way we can test for someone picking up other environmental cues.
Of course we can.
However the claim being made is for dowsing in the standard sense of using dowsing sticks
So what? The sticks could easily be a placebo, or a simple amplifier for muscle movements as has been suggested. I don't think it's magic or new age woo woo energy vibrations, just to be clear. To me the question is whether or not a diviner can find water. How is a separate question, once you've established whether or not it is possible.
Science does not care about your gut feelings
Science does not care about your anecdotes either. (-:
To me the question is whether or not a diviner can find water. How is a separate question
Indeed - I said exactly that in my first post here.
(Pedantically, the question isn't whether they can find water, rather that they can do so beyond the probability of chance and without cheating.)
Here's another question.
Assuming that divination works: In order to divine water, does one just need the correct tools, or does it require special training / innate ability? Ie, I can reliably find nails and pipes in a wall using a hand-held metal detector (and so can anyone else), would I similarly be able to go buy a couple of rods tomorrow and successfully go looking for underground running water?
Science does not care about your anecdotes.
It should care if there's a huge body of it. They can be indicative of something. You'd be a fool to sit there with your fingers in your ears flat out denying something that happens every day just because there isn't a peer reviewed study.
100% based on the experiences of me and the missus.
We were at a heritage centre near Otterburn and the chap there handed me a set - within a couple of minutes I’d “found an underground spring”. Missus did too without question. It’s an odd sensation as you can feel the friction / movement in the palm of your hand.
** that said, the couple that were with us had nothing. Nowt. Thought we were hoaxing them.
within a couple of minutes I’d “found an underground spring”
What was this spring and how did you know you'd found it?
John Humphrys has experienced it too ...
https://inews.co.uk/news/bbcs-john-humphrys-defends-water-divining-saying-felt-force/
So you don’t think the huge amount of anecdotal evidence is worth anything at all?
How much do you think that's worth?
I’m not arguing that divining is true – I have no idea – but you also cannot yet prove it is false.
Because that would require me to prove a negative. I thought you were keen on the scientific method.
of course, it works, god sends (invisible) naked winged babies down to interfere with your rods and hey presto water, simple really.
Mrs M used to be able to divine water pipes on the farm and when she worked for a water company but seems to have lost the ability.
There are enough people claiming this ability for me to believe it, in spite of/because of my scientific background.
I compare dowsing (receiving a signal or identifiying a presence, then acting on it), to a radio. It plays a sound in response to a signal generated elsewhere. If you alter the radio settings/ dowser by pressurising them by observation , its ilke generating a field of static or changing the tuning. The radio won't work.
I’ve used diving rods several times. They worked. FFS! I’ve no idea how or why. One time I used them to find a key that had been lost for over six months on a patch of waste ground. Very, very sceptical when I started but put a clear mental image of said key into my mind, walked around, rods crossed, stopped and stooped down. There it was under some long grass. Makes no logical sense whatsoever but it worked.
I think there’s a logical explanation for sure, just maybe from area of knowledge that’s perhaps not as well understood as we think.
if it does and anyone who can would like a trip to harrogate and find some lighting cables on my site please post up.the Cable avoidance tool we have has found dozens of responses but no cable.
Thanks ps i sort of hope it does work
It should care if there’s a huge body of it. They can be indicative of something. You’d be a fool to sit there with your fingers in your ears
True, but I refer you to my previous comment:
In terms of suggesting that further investigation may have merit? Yes.
In terms of providing a shred of proof / evidence? No.
Plenty of people believe plenty of different things, our brains are quite remarkable but easily fooled. A scientific breakthrough can be founded on the basis of the anecdotal observations of one person or a thousand, numbers don't necessarily add weight to a theory.
Chinese medicine is a good example here. There's a handful of drugs that have their roots in TCM (eg., Ephedrine) and we're getting some interesting leads (a compound in turmeric is looking promising for cancer treatment), but the signal to noise ratio is proving incredibly poor - demonstrably, or Big Pharma would be all over an untapped goldmine of new drugs like a tramp on chips. Now, how many people do you reckon will have anecdotal "evidence" that TCM works? A billion maybe? More?
You're absolutely right that we'd be daft to ignore it. But we'd be naive to give it special credence because a number of people believe it works, too. Plenty of people like Justin Bieber FFS, we're not to be trusted as a subjective species.
(I'm quite pleased that I got to the end of this without mentioning religion. Erm, oops.)
What he’s saying is that simply because something cannot be disproved is no reason to argue that it must be true.
No he is saying that burden of proof lies on those who propose it and the default position is to await the evidence to prove it is real. Basically what it says at the start of what you read
<b>Russell's teapot</b> is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of <i>disproof</i> to other
How did you miss the evidence?
You’d be a fool to sit there with your fingers in your ears flat out denying something that happens every day just because there isn’t a peer reviewed study.
No you would be a fool to believe anecdotes when all the peer reviewed literature says there is no effect. there is no peer review evidence to support MMR causing autism but I can find plenty of anecdote. You saying its foolish to deny the science and go with the anecdote?
Out of interest do you believe what you write or are you just very confused or are you just being a devils advocate?
So you don’t think the huge amount of anecdotal evidence is worth anything at all?
Lots of people claim to have seen the lochness monster
Because that would require me to prove a negative. I thought you were keen on the scientific method.
So science never seeks to prove a negative? Really?
I'm confident that astrology has been disproved, because I did not see any way round the methodology. There isn't always room for doubt in every experiment, but in some there is.
What exactly is your problem with my position here?
What exactly is your problem with my position here?
Same as it always is. Inability to comprehend a view other than your own :-).
How did you miss the evidence?
That's secondary evidence - I read his original quote, which is primary evidence, and then I placed my own interpretation on it.
No you would be a fool to believe anecdotes when all the peer reviewed literature says there is no effect. there is no peer review evidence to support MMR causing autism but I can find plenty of anecdote. You saying its foolish to deny the science and go with the anecdote?
That's in no way comparable. It should be obvious, but I'll spell it out.
In the case of MMR anecdotes, people conflate independent things. So someone gets vaccinated, then they turn out to be autistic. But you don't know if the kid was going to be diagnosed as autistic anyway. And there are millions of kids who are vaccinated but aren't autistic. In the case of water divining, the diviner says 'dig here' and they find the pipe. The digger probably wouldn't have found a pipe if he was just digging random holes, would he?
Why do you think utility companies pay diviners?
I lost my flat keys somewhere in several square kms of snow. My dousing sticks were locked in the flat so I had a go with my ski sticks. Walking past the tourist office they nearly pulled themselves out of my hand so I went in and on uttering the magic words, flat keys, they appeared on the counter. True story, just a little embellished.
Same as it always is. Inability to comprehend a view other than your own :-).
I'm not sure that's exactly the case. Molgrips is a lovely bloke, but he's the Devil's Advocate Incarnate. I'm not convinced that he actually holds any opinions of his own, he just doesn't like others having them. (-:
I’m confident that astrology has been disproved
Are you? This should be good. How has it been disproved?
Inability to comprehend a view other than your own 🙂
What? I can certainly comprehend lots of views. I hold quite a few. Just in this case I don't hold the one you do, because I've evaluated your position rationally and I don't agree with it 🙂
I think it's you who's not fully understanding my position.
Are you? This should be good. How has it been disproved?
There was an experiment where some university professor gave horoscopes to a load of people. A high percentage (something like 75%) of people said the horoscope accurately described them, and an even higher percentage (90 something) of people's friends said it accurately described them. Except they'd all been given the exact same text.
I’m not convinced that he actually holds any opinions of his own, he just doesn’t like others having them
Thanks for the compliment however I do of course hold opinions. The issue is that nothing is black and white in my mind. Everything is shades of grey. We have no truths, only lots of evidence of various weights. You can (or should) never be sure of anything, just differently confident. The world is a very complex and mysterious place, whether you like it or not. As I said before, the history of science is rammed with people who were absolutely sure of things and were made to look silly.
And if you listen carefully to scientists, most of them talk like this. They say 'as we understand it...' or 'the results show that...' because they know full well that their scientific world could (and maybe inevitably will) be turned on its head eventually - it's only a matter of time.
In the case of water divining, the diviner says ‘dig here’ and they find the pipe. The digger probably wouldn’t have found a pipe if he was just digging random holes, would he?
Do they? 100% of the time? 50% of the time? 10% of the time? Is anyone reporting all the inaccurate guesses?
I'd hazard that an experienced utilities engineer would have a reasonably good idea where pipes are likely to be located. This is exactly what they do in the absence of other information - it's not a "random hole," it's a highly educated guess.
Why do you think utility companies pay diviners?
Before we can answer this question we must first ask the question "do utility companies pay diviners?" rather than blindly accepting the opening premise as fact. And the answer, I'm sure we'll all be surprised to hear, is "no they don't." It's individual engineers doing it unofficially for their own amusement / interest.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/22/water-firms-backtrack-admissions-divining-rods
There was an experiment where some university professor gave horoscopes to a load of people. A high percentage (something like 75%) of people said the horoscope accurately described them, and an even higher percentage (90 something) of people’s friends said it accurately described them. Except they’d all been given the exact same text.
That's not a horoscope, it's a Barnum statement. We've demonstrated here that a Barnum statement can work, we haven't disproven anything (unless your premise is "all horoscopes are just Barnum statements" which is highly likely but we're going to need to see proof of that assertion). What else have you got?
The issue is that nothing is black and white in my mind.
Hang on. Five minutes ago you were arguing that astrology had been disproven (and somewhat bizarrely that it was possible to prove a negative). That's pretty black and white.
I actually agree with your 'shades of grey' notion, so long as we're happy to accept "sufficiently dark grey that it's black for all practical purposes" as a possible shade.
I was also wondering about the bold statement that astrology has been disproved.
The crux of this whole discussion is that you can't disprove dowsing (or astrology). Howver, if you can't demonstrate reliable, repeatable scientific evidence in support of an alleged phenomena, the probability of it being real is very low.
Do they? 100% of the time? 50% of the time? 10% of the time? Is anyone reporting all the inaccurate guesses?
If you were the boss of a water company or a cash strapped council, how accurate would they have to be for you to keep employing them? If you were a professional diviner, how successful do you think you'd have to be to stay in work?
It’s individual engineers doing it unofficially for their own amusement / interest.
There does seem to be a lot of people actually using the results, from the stories I have seen.
I’d hazard that an experienced utilities engineer would have a reasonably good idea where pipes are likely to be located. This is exactly what they do in the absence of other information – it’s not a “random hole,” it’s a highly educated guess.
According to the stories, they use diviners (or do it themselves) when they don't know where the pipes or cables are, so that would not be the situation you described.
That’s not a horoscope, it’s a Barnum Statement.
You'll have to expand on that.
I was also wondering about the bold statement that astrology has been disproved.
I think that what I actually said was "I'm satisfied it is false".
I actually agree with your ‘shades of grey’ notion, so long as we’re happy to accept “sufficiently dark grey that it’s black for all practical purposes” as a possible shade.
The opposite in fact. For practical purposes, I weigh up the options and make a choice. It's only in the abstract academic sense that I have the luxury of being able to carry two opposing ideas in my head, because I don't need to pick one.
If you were the boss of a water company or a cash strapped council, how accurate would they have to be for you to keep employing them?
We've just covered this - they aren't doing that.
If you were a professional diviner, how successful do you think you’d have to be to stay in work?
Probably about the same as any professional medium, faith healer, fortune teller, mind reader, street magician... Do I really need to explain confirmation bias?
How do we define success here? If they get lucky on their sixth attempt of the day, is that not a successful divination?
According to the stories, they use diviners (or do it themselves) when they don’t know where the pipes or cables are, so that would not be the situation you described.
The "stories" would be a lot less interesting if they were finding pipes in locations where they already knew where they were, wouldn't they. Is it not a far more plausible explanation that they don't "know" where the pipes are but have a pretty bloody good idea?
A bloke from Openreach came round to our work a couple of months ago, looking for where the fibre comes into the building. No-one knew where it was, but he found it pretty quickly. Not because he had fibre-divining equipment but because he's been to a thousand other buildings which had cable installed. Your notion of "digging random holes" is fallacious because it assumes that what you're looking for is also placed at random. It generally isn't.
We’ve just covered this – they aren’t doing that.
Well they said they were, and then everyone thought they were insane and they retracted their claims. I wonder why they said they were in the first place?
Is it not a far more plausible explanation that they don’t “know” where the pipes are but have a pretty bloody good idea?
So you think they are saying 'ok lads, I think the pipe is here, but we'll hold off and wait for an old guy to cross his sticks before we dig' ?
Your notion of “digging random holes” is fallacious because it assumes that what you’re looking for is also placed at random. It generally isn’t.
So again - you say the engineers know exactly where stuff is, they just wait for the diviner first before digging? That would be odd. Would you be ringing diviners in that situation?
You’ll have to expand on that.
I'm sure you can google "Barnum statement" as well as I can (unless I'm misunderstanding what you're asking for clarification on?).
I think that what I actually said was “I’m satisfied it is false”.
That might've been what you meant to say, and if it had been what you'd said then I would have shared your satisfaction.
"So science never seeks to prove a negative? Really?
I’m confident that astrology has been disproved, because I did not see any way round the methodology. "
Anyway, in case you missed it, the real reason I am arguing here is because the absolute certainty being displayed here in the face of mystery, by people who aren't involved in the subject at all and often aren't scientists irks me greatly. You have no business being THAT sure of something you know nothing about.
The clever clogs want to disbelieve it. They want to think they know better than the daft hippies. So they are exhibiting as much confirmation as the daft hippies themselves.
So you think they are saying ‘ok lads, I think the pipe is here, but we’ll hold off and wait for an old guy to cross his sticks before we dig’ ?
I've absolutely no idea what they're doing. But that seems a lot more plausible an explanation, do you not think?
Scenario 1: Experienced utility workers ascertain where the most likely location for a pipe might be. Diviner comes along and goes "yep, you're right." Workers dig hole, are amazed at the diviner's accuracy.
Scenario 2: Inexplicable magic sticks.
you say the engineers know exactly where stuff is, they just wait for the diviner first before digging? That would be odd.
I've worked for a civil engineering company and met a lot of people who dig holes in roads. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
Would you be ringing diviners in that situation?
Is your browser set to write-only? I'm not calling this "fact" out a third time.
I read his original quote, which is primary evidence, and then I placed my own interpretation on it.
Yes and your interpretation was wrong even when they told you what it meant.
In the case of MMR anecdotes, people conflate independent things
You mean we cannot rely on anecdotes.
Why do you think utility companies pay diviners?
I have no idea* but this does not means it works. You do know about uri gellars work to find oil etc dont you?
* are they idiots?
The clever clogs want to disbelieve it. They want to think they know better than the daft hippies.
And the daft hippies have no vested interest whatsoever, of course.
I don't want to disbelieve it. Quite the opposite in fact, I'd love for it to be true, it'd be incredible and deeply fascinating. I just think it's highly unlikely, is all.
Don't misunderstand my stance. I'm not closed-minded or a hater, I grew up with a massive appetite for unexplained phenomena, it fascinated me as a kid and I've since looked into a lot of this sort of stuff. The truth though, Mr Mulder, is that the vast amount of supernatural doings have pretty mundane rational explanations. Nods to Occam
Experienced utility workers ascertain where the most likely location for a pipe might be. Diviner comes along and goes “yep, you’re right.” Workers dig hole, are amazed at the diviner’s accuracy.
Why would the diviner even be there in this situation?
Is your browser set to write-only? I’m not calling this “fact” out a third time
I dispute this fact because a) loads of people say they've worked with diviners both on here and all over the internet and b) the water companies originally said they worked with diviners, which would be a bit odd if they didn't, don't you think? They did issue a retraction but that could very easily have been under duress because of the negative press. And they didn't all retract anyway if you read the link you posted, but they did say they didn't pay for the privilege.
Again - why call a diviner if you already know where the pipes are?
The truth though, Mr Mulder, is that the vast amount of supernatural doings have pretty mundane rational explanations.
Oh yes of course. I don't believe in the supernatural (if you overlook the fact that the term is an oxymoron anyway). I do not believe it is magic. But even if it is subconscious response to cues, it is still fascinating because people aren't taught these cues, so how do they know about the water?
* are they idiots?
Seeing as Anecdotes are the new Facts:
As I said earlier, I used to work for a civil engineering company. They were contracted out by, amongst other people, various water companies.</div>
The owner was a guy who took to IT and technology like a duck to petrol, he had an inherent mistrust of anything to do with computers. If he was presented with the option of either a comprehensive road network database system or water diviners, there is little doubt whatsoever in my mind that he'd be out there with the coathangers himself.
But even if it is subconscious response to cues, it is still fascinating
Absolutely. No arguments here.
because people aren’t taught these cues, so how do they know about the water?
I offered one explanation earlier.
Also: it could be intentional trickery. Could be subconscious "knowledge." Could be that there's some sort of inherent sensitivity humans have to running water (cf. explain magnets, radioactivity or radio waves to a society yet to discover them). It could be (excuse me) "divine" intervention. Could be something else entirely.
We should consider all of these possibilities, though I'm unconvinced that they should all be given equal credence.
Thank you molgrips 😃 You took over perfectly as Someone needed to keep the wheels of industry turning today 😂
Daft? Yep. Hippy? A little. Rarely at the same time though, not to say it's not possible 😉
Dogma!!!!!! Grrrrr!
It's total horseshit, and yet...
There are six of us at work and we do have a set of rods (we drill boreholes so need to know where water pipes are so we don't ruin them). We'd never use them on site, but we can all get them to work. None of us believe in it, and yet it does seem to work. None of us are hippies or thick- we're all geologists with decent degrees. We are utterly scathing about divining in conversation, because it's nonsense, and yet every time we look for something with them it works. It works on flowing water and still water. And it shouldn't, obviously.
And every utility team we use from a variety of companies has a set. They'll find stuff with them but certainly won't report it if that's how they found it.
I'd put no reliance on it whatsoever but it just seems to have a bit of something about it.
why call a diviner if you already know where the pipes are?
the answer is not because its a demonstrably true scientific fact that it is effective
Why do you keep asking? what a business spends its money on is many things - proof of truth/efficacy is not one of them.
they may well think it works that does not mean it does.
Scenario 1: Experienced utility workers ascertain where the most likely location for a pipe might be. Diviner comes along and goes “yep, you’re right.” Workers dig hole, are amazed at the diviner’s accuracy.
This has never happened when I've been on site with a utility surveyor with rods. More often than not they can't find something using traditional methods and get out the rods as a last resort if they have absolutely no idea where a pipe goes. They seem to work, but because they shouldn't work they'll say "keep well away from that whole area" rather than "there's a pipe there".
Where are you geographically? I'd love to see this first-hand.
We're in the East Midlands. You're welcome to come and watch us go "this is obviously nonsense" and then find something. We even tried with our eyes closed once and it worked on the drains in our car park.
I'd consider it to be a party trick rather than a useful method of finding pipes though. I'd actually be very grateful, for the sake of my own sanity and integrity as a man of science, if you came out and saw us trying it and it didn't work. Because it's complete and utter rubbish.
Of course dowsing works, although bent coat hangers are a little old school.
All I need is a couple of Golden Retrievers and I can persuade any naysayer to change their views...
There was an experiment where some university professor gave horoscopes to a load of people.
As Cougar points out that wasnt tested whether proper horoscopes* work but instead whether fake horoscopes seem to work for many people.
Just because the latter is true doesnt mean the former isnt. Although possibly it could make you think about your own certainty about dowsing.
*By which I mean a horoscope prepared for an individual using date/time of birth and other key informational items.
You have no business being THAT sure of something you know nothing about.
I assume therefore you are going to retract your comments about astrology and horoscopes in particular since you have demonstrated very limited understanding of them.
Where are you geographically? I’d love to see this first-hand.
I made an offer several pages ago. North Wales, about halfway between Gwydir and Penmachno, so you wouldn’t have a wasted journey 😀
You can (or should) never be sure of anything, just differently confident
In other words, probability, as I mentioned earlier.
Entertaining doubt does not mean you assign the same probability to all outcomes. When you say that you believe astrology has been disproved (you did actually write that down!) I assume you mean that because there is no supporting experimental evidence, there's a high probability it doesn't work, and a low probability that it does work.
Ditto dowsing. I think the balance of probability is that it is not a real phenomenon, because I don't believe that controlled testing and anecdotal evidence have equal value.
We’re in the East Midlands. You’re welcome to come and watch us go “this is obviously nonsense” and then find something.
...
I made an offer several pages ago. North Wales,
WEJ, sorry, I missed that.
You're both about two hours from me, I'm in East Lancs. If you're happy to do a weekend and feel that you've sufficient confidence that it'll work, I'll gleefully do it.
Anyway, in case you missed it, the real reason I am arguing here is because the absolute certainty being displayed here in the face of mystery,
Who's doing that?
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?
sorry, my poor writing style.
'They' being the prospecting team/the Company. My man tested the water after the fact but had no decision or role in the hiring/prospecting.
Entertaining doubt does not mean you assign the same probability to all outcomes.
Of course not, I'm not doing that. That would be ridiculous!
I don’t believe that controlled testing and anecdotal evidence have equal value.
Generally I'd agree, but a controlled test can very easily be flawed (having faith in the scientific method is not the same as having faith in the experimental conclusions of every scientist) and anecdotal evidence can have value. I'm not making any predictions in this case since I haven't done a lot of research into it.
It's normally easy to explain away anecdotes for implausible claims, but in this case it's rather more difficult for me to do from my armchair. There's quite a few comments online saying 'scientists think it's "just" an ideomotor effect based on subconscious clues' and that's probably true in my opinion but it's still pretty remarkable and mysterious given that these 'clues' are visible to untrained people and the fact they would have to be operating 'subconsciously'. That would be the mystery for me - not magical energy.
Seeing as Anecdotes are the new Facts:
Not at all what I've been saying.
As Cougar points out that wasnt tested whether proper horoscopes* work but instead whether fake horoscopes seem to work for many people.
As I recall it was a 'proper' horoscope based on time and place of birth etc, just for one individual that was given to everyone.
Howver, if you can’t demonstrate reliable, repeatable scientific evidence in support of an alleged phenomena, the probability of it being real is very low.
Many concepts in Physics haven't been experimentally proven at all, and many took half a century for experimental evidence to agree. There are lots of odd observations that get shelved for many years until someone figures out what's going on.
This attitude of certainty does not fit well with my understanding of physics. The Socratic paradox seems very appropriate here.
The truth though, Mr Mulder, is that the vast amount of supernatural doings have pretty mundane rational explanations.
Yes, of course, and that is exactly what I would be looking for. Again - I don't believe in magic or new age woo. Definitely not. If dowsing works, then rational is exactly what it must be. As for mundane - maybe, yes, or maybe it'll turn out to be something truly scientifically remarkable. We won't know until we discover it.
Just chipping in a bit again, not getting involved seriously, CBA to argue.
You wouldn't use diving to find pipes, that'd be daft seeing as there are accurate maps of every DMA in the country. The guys I worked with used to use the rods to find a leak, you walk along the pipe and then the rods swing when the water is moving in a different direction. One guy's crossed, the other one's swung out.
They did work for finding the pipes, but you wouldn't use them for that.
Also they weren't paid to use the rods, they had proper equipment they were supposed to use, but the rods were faster and more accurate. The most commonly used piece of equipment though was a listening stick, which was just a metal pole with a block of wood on the end.
Molly that is an oxymoron
Oh I know it is junk but I was just curious why molgrip wasnt applying the same approach to astrology as to dowsing.
As I recall it was a ‘proper’ horoscope based on time and place of birth etc, just for one individual that was given to everyone.
I would doubt it was a proper one as opposed to a newspaper one. Since to be fair to the believers/scammers for the one to one jobs they put in more effort. So I cant see why you can discount it so easily. Particularly since the experiment only showed there could be alternative explanations.
Oh I know it is junk but I was just curious why molgrip wasnt applying the same approach to astrology as to dowsing.
It's easier to refute evidence in favour of astrology, in my view. A horoscope is vague enough that you can retro-fit what it says to stuff that has happened or is happening. An X on a map that locates a pipe isn't vague. Of course, in the case of finding places to dig a well - that is vague, since there could be water over the entire area, and digging a hole anywhere in that area would find it. Likewise leaks, there *could* be leaks everywhere, but one would assume that if there were still loads of other leaks they'd notice they'd still be there. However in the case of finding a pipe in a field - there's only the one pipe in the entire field, and if the dowser finds it, then there's something going on isn't there?
I would doubt it was a proper one as opposed to a newspaper one. Since to be fair to the believers/scammers for the one to one jobs they put in more effort. So I cant see why you can discount it so easily. Particularly since the experiment only showed there could be alternative explanations.
Fair enough. Still waiting to be convinced. But predicting what's going to happen in the future to a human being is a much taller order than finding a chemical in the ground that's definitely there. So I'd need more convincing of astrology. And to re-state, I'm not convinced of dowsing, I just don't know what's going on.
Also they weren’t paid to use the rods, they had proper equipment they were supposed to use, but the rods were faster and more accurate.
@Cougar this is relevant to your discussion of facts earlier.
this is relevant to your discussion of
factsanecdotes earlier
FTFY.
A horoscope is vague enough that you can retro-fit what it says to stuff that has happened or is happening.
"A" horoscope is not all horoscopes. Are you judging the entire field of astrology based on something that a copy editor makes up in the Daily Express? That would seem to be rash thinking to me.
there’s only the one pipe in the entire field, and if the dowser finds it, then there’s something going on isn’t there?
There certainly is.
There certainly is.
Ok so you would take issue with all those people saying 'it definitely does not work' ?
As I recall it was a ‘proper’ horoscope based on time and place of birth etc, just for one individual that was given to everyone.
Two things here.
1) If someone thinks their horoscope is accurate then ipso facto astrology works (see the homeopathy thread - homeopathy does work, just not beyond placebo). If you're giving someone else's horoscope to someone then that's not proving anything, you're just providing a control group. You might as well claim you've proven that arsenic isn't poisonous by eating an orange.
2) Given that you can't accurately recall what you yourself said on the previous page, maybe this discussion would be best advanced by you digging out a link to the actual study you're referencing?
I don't know if this has come up in this thread .. i've only read the first few pages.
But for those who defend divining as a method for finding things, have a read of these.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a21678/dowsing-iraq-bomb-detectors/
This stuff is just a harmless way to find things that you know are already there, until you trust it with something important like keeping car bombs out of Baghdad.