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.
