[Closed] Divining does it work?

that’s not proving anything

Not convinced that's true.  If the same text describes everyone, how can it be providing any useful insight into one person?

And I want to know - do you take issue with the people who say dowsing definitely does not work?

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.

a) That's tragic, but not what's being talked about here.  Con artists will always con.  What's the issue on this thread is whether or not you can find water with two metal rods.

b) The allegation is that you can find water when you *don't* already know it's there.

Ok so you would take issue with all those people saying ‘it definitely does not work’ ?

I would, but that's a non sequitur.  My point was that "something" is going on, but that "something" isn't necessarily what's being claimed.

Personally, I think it's all bollocks.  But I don't know enough to say - yet - that it definitely doesn't work because as you're keen to keep reminding us plenty of people are attesting that it does, and because I can attribute a number of possible explanations as to how the effect might occur.

Not convinced that’s true.  If the same text describes everyone, how can it be providing any useful insight into one person?

The "horoscope" in your increasingly fictitious example worked in so far as it was observed to be accurate (which incidentally tells us a great deal about our ability to objectively report on things like divination).  Who said anything about "useful" being a required metric?

I don't know why you're making such a meal of this, TBH.  Astrology is fairly readily disprovable, simply by dint of comparing horoscopes from several different "professional" astrologers.  If there was anything in it, there would reliably be some common crossover between them beyond the probability of chance.  As Dire Straits once sang, "two men say they're Jesus - one of them must be wrong."

My tuppence worth.....presented as anecdote only and not evidence of anything much.

As a newly minted and extremely wet behind the ears young surveyor, working in the first real job of my career, I was sent to to the site where we were constructing a new sports pavilion in a public park in Lesmahagow.

Part of the works required  us to dig trial pits to establish the existing depth of the mains water supply to the existing building to see if it met current regs and allowed us to reuse the supply and avoid digging a 150 yard track through the park for a new one.

We had a clear starting point ( the existing building) and a clear finishing point ( the stop valve in the street)

Having drawn a straight line between them  across the park and  then digging  a series of perpendicular trenches across this line to try and intercept this pipe, no sign of the main was to be found.

An old plumber working on the site  announced that he would get some divining rods and dowse for it.

I , in my youthful naivety, proclaimed that to be "a lot of shite".

He then suggested that, instead of him doing it, that I did it instead.  He fashioned some rods from  the wire of a chain link fence which was being removed from the tennis court and  gave me some simple instructions and told me to carry on, egged on by the site manager.

I knew full well they were ripping the piss out of me, but ever game for a laugh, I carried on as instructed.

After walking a grid of the park , pushing markers into the grass wherever the wind or my random unbalanced walking style caused the rods to cross I had eventually marked out a meandering path that , for the most part, was nowhere near where the water main was supposed to be.

After digging a few holes, it turned out however that  the water main was pretty much where I had marked out.

Do I believe in the magic power of water divining? Not really.

Do I believe in the wisdom of aged tradesmen? You bet  I do. That was a lesson that has served me very well over the years.

until you trust it with something important like keeping car bombs out of Baghdad

No reported water balloon attacks in Baghdad in that period though.

Makes you think.

After digging a few holes, it turned out however that  the water main was pretty much where I had marked out.

Chance, then?

Maybe? ....but  if it was, it was  directed chance rather than random chance.

We were digging in places  marked by my dowsing  but in places that common sense would not have dictated but also not  randomly all over the park.

Again, not presented as evidence of anything other than the existence of wily old plumbers and stupid young surveyors.

What did you do that was stupid in that instance?

We were digging in places  marked by my dowsing  but in places that common sense would not have dictated but also not  randomly all over the park.

That suggests that your dowsing was doing something, doesn't it?

What did you do that was stupid in that instance?

Opened my naive, inexperienced mouth and told someone  30 years more experienced of the world than I that his idea was "a lot of shite" without any real idea of what I was talking about.

That's the lesson here.

That suggests that your dowsing was doing something, doesn’t it?

Mibbes aye, mibbes naw!

that his idea was “a lot of shite” without any real idea of what I was talking about.

So for the benefit of the Jury, your honour, the defendant has admitted that his idea was NOT a lot of shite, therefore dowsing works.

therefore dowsing works.

Therefore dowsing appeared to work in that instance.

You can't infer the general from a single instance of the specific.

I was swayed but not convinced and given the same situation again would use the now readily available scanning equipment..

Ok so you would take issue with all those people saying ‘it definitely does not work’ ?

Who's saying that?

That’s tragic, but not what’s being talked about here.  Con artists will always con

But how do you know it was a con? There was anecdotal evidence from Iraqi users that the devices detected weapons and explosives.

The answer, of course, is that you do proper, controlled,scientific testing, and demonstrate that the bomb dowsers don't perform any better than chance.

So what's the difference between the bomb detectors and water divining? Why is one obviously a con, and the other one is not?

So what’s the difference between the bomb detectors and water divining? Why is one obviously a con, and the other one is not?

Lives aren't at stake when engineers use water diviniation.  What the alleged divination was being used for, and how it was being used, is completely different.

Bomb detection clearly didn't work well enough to be useful.  But apparently water divination DOES work well enough to be useful, according to the stories.

If only bombs contained water, we'd be golden.

Bomb detection clearly didn’t work well enough to be useful.  But apparently water divination DOES work well enough to be useful, according to the stories.

I expect that the primary difference between the two techniques here is that when you get water divination wrong you get to have another try.

Bomb detection clearly didn’t work well enough to be useful.  But apparently water divination DOES work well enough to be useful, according to the stories.

So does bomb detection, according to the stories.

And miraculously it works on your 5th go and you forget about the first 4 failed attempts.

'It really works!'

So does bomb detection, according to the stories.

Which stories?

And miraculously it works on your 5th go and you forget about the first 4 failed attempts.

‘It really works!’

Is that what's happening here?  I don't see that being described on this thread...?

Here's the thing. A very common response is that it's an ideomotor effect- that you subconsciously do it yourself. But then people use that to jump to "dowsing doesn't work", which is wrong. The correct conclusion is that if it's an ideomotor effect then dowsing does work, as it's an effective way to get results from your subconscious- which is actually pretty hard

And miraculously it works on your 5th go and you forget about the first 4 failed attempts.

Or, in my case, you try it precisely once, it appears to work and you spend the next 25  years  maintaining a 100% record of success but still remaining sceptical.

molgrips,

"can you find water with two metal rods"

No.

The Amazing Randi tested dowsers for his million dollar prize. He said that, although they _all_ failed his double blind experiments, that they were always the most surprised to fail (compared to psychics, mediums and mind readers of various kinds).

They (in his tested cases) were apparently not frauds and genuinely believed that the experiments they agreed to participate in with Randi would be easy (detecting which upside down buckets in a room concealed full or empty cups of water.

Importantly, when the dowsers tested themselves in the same way, or had some practice before the event by getting a friend to conceal a cup under a series of buckets, they were always successful. But in a room where no-one knew anything (double blind in that the person who was observing had no idea where the water was either) they failed (did no better than chance).

That should tell you something important about dowsing. When there is someone or something in the area capable of giving conscious or unconscious cues, dowsing works!

When finding pipes and drainage etc there will be local cues in the slope and shape of the land, the color, type and size of the vegetation or the distance from nearby roads or infrastructure, and their orientation.

This effect is probably increased if the person holding the dowsing rods has a lifetime of experience in digging holes to bury drainage pipes, and digging them up again.

Basically,

a) Reaction to environmental cues explains the hit rate.

b) The ideomotor effect explains the movement.

c) The failure under double blind conditions shows that a) and b) are a better explanation of dowsing than intelligent sticks.

So for all of you believers, try the experiment

Google randi dowsers (like I just did without thinking at work :O) and fill yer boots, with double blind evidence based loveliness.

Bomb detection clearly didn’t work well enough to be useful.

From Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651):

A senior [Iraqi] ministry official, Assistant Deputy Minister General Tareq al-Asl, told Asharq Al-Awsat: "The reason the director of the company was arrested was not because the device doesn't work, but because he refused to divulge the secret of how it works to the British authorities, and the Americans before them. I have tested it in practice and it works effectively and 100% reliably."

100% reliable according to General al-Asl. Why should I discount his anecdotal evidence and believe your opinion that "bomb detection clearly didn't work well enough to be useful"?

I don't believe General al-Asl because reputable people tested these devices properly, and demonstrated that they did not perform any better than chance. I think it is very unlikely that dowsing is a genuine phenomena for the same reasons.

As a follow up, I did hear a tale of a way to convince people of dowsing and show them it was false at the same time.

Do the whole "Hey I found a thing" demonstration with some water/gold etc. hidden under a series of buckets.

Then teach others to repeat your success "wow it moves, without me trying" etc.

Then show them there is no water/gold under the bucket and explain the ideomotor effect.

I think this has been done (although I lack a reference), but the results showed that many of the new trainees refused to believe the trainer when they were told it was a false result.

P.S. I have a feeling that Assistant Deputy Minister General Tareq al-Asl was potentially in the frame for spending a considerable amount of cash on pseudoscience.

I have a feeling that Assistant Deputy Minister General Tareq al-Asl was potentially in the frame for spending a considerable amount of cash on pseudoscience

Oh yes, everything involved in the bomb detectors was getting big kickbacks, but proper scientific testing doesn't care if you are genuinely dishonest or a misguided believer. All that matters is objectively testing the effect that is being claimed.

eat_the_pudding - thanks, this is the kind of discussion I was hoping for.

Reaction to environmental cues explains the hit rate.

Yes, but these environmental cues are what interests me.  If you knew what these cues were, then you'd not need the rods, you could just say 'ok well see that dip there, that's an old trench so that's where the main is'.  The interesting thing is that people seem unable to consciously see the cues (if they are visual) and yet with two sticks in their hands their subconscious sees them anyway and goes direct to their hands.

If people who haven't been taught what to look for are able to recognise the cues anyway then that is a pretty interesting psychological phenomenon, isn't it?

The Amazing Randi tested dowsers for his million dollar prize. He said that, although they _all_ failed his double blind experiments

Is Perchypanther's story not of interest?  What holes can you pick in it?  No-one knew where the main was, did they?

Is Perchypanther’s story not of interest? What holes can you pick in it? No-one knew where the main was, did they?

You can't entirely dismiss the possibility, for example, that the wily old council plumber might have been there 20 odd years earlier when the original main was laid.

I certainly had no idea of the location but, might well have been subconsciously picking up clues from the environment or from the plumber himself.

Nobody is more sceptical about it than I am. I do believe that the plumbers believed in it.

Edit: You can't also discount the theory that I might be an internet bullshitter and you only have my word that I ain't.  Hardly compelling evidence is it? 😉

I was sent to to the site where we were constructing a new sports pavilion in a public park in Lesmahagow.

Ooo, was that in the glebe? I have vague memories of the old one

McKirdy Park - the changing rooms for the tennis courts. 1995-ish

Behind the Black Bull

Cheers. Not where I thought at all but it was fun hunting it on Google maps.

the carpark example also points to the fact that trenches were initially dug to rule out the incorrect locations so the 'diviner' had basically the one remaining route to dowse where the main actually was

Yes, but these environmental cues are what interests me

So why didnt you address all the times people pointed out how you could use proper testing to actually isolate these.

As opposed to just waving hands around and declaring the scientists are foolish for actually wanting to test the claimed phenomenon properly?

Is Perchypanther’s story not of interest? What holes can you pick in it?

Not really. Could have been multiple factors at play, etherboy mentions one flaw in the test. Which is why it makes sense to start with a proper controlled experiment. For example if the claim is people can detect running water then lay a couple of pipes and turn the water on and off and see how they get on (as per one of the experiments which, oddly enough, didnt give positive results) ensuring its doubleblind.

We are all very good at fooling ourselves which is why proper testing is important.

Not really. Could have been multiple factors at play, etherboy mentions one flaw in the test.

So you think that just because its not magic it's of no interest?  It's certainly unexplained, as far as I am concerned.  To me it feels so implausible that something interesting is happening.  And yet the evidence, anecdotal as it is, is intriguing in a way that other magic woo woo is not.

For example, we know it's easy for a supposed medium to trick people.  It's been documented how it works, people have trained themselves to do it successfully from a cynical position, and written about it.  However with dowsing, people don't need training in observing external cues, it just somehow seems to work out in the field.  Why?  And I mean actually why, not just some hand wavey armchair dismissal.  To me, this particular topic is more interesting than that.  I'd be happy if it turned out to be all just a con or something simple.  But I'd quite like to know.

However with dowsing, people don’t need training in observing external cues, it just somehow seems to work out in the field.  Why?  And I mean actually why, not just some hand wavey armchair dismissal.  To me, this particular topic is more interesting than that.  I’d be happy if it turned out to be all just a con or something simple.  But I’d quite like to know.

Then instead of debating (and trying to defend) dowsing, try looking at the idiomotor effect.  It's obvious from the tests that have been conducted that when better controls are put in place that the "success" rate is no better than chance so clearly it is not some force from the water that is moving the rods. That being the case the most obvious cause for the movement of the rods is from the person who is actually holding them.  I'm not saying that they are doing it consciously or are being deliberately deceitful but they are the most likely source of input.

So you think that just because its not magic it’s of no interest?

No I didnt say that. However as evidence due to its age its of very limited value.

And yet the evidence, anecdotal as it is, is intriguing in a way that other magic woo woo is not.

You have repeatedly failed to show why though eg your casual dismissing of other subjects is, if anything, worse than anyone else has said about dowsing.

However with dowsing, people don’t need training in observing external cues, it just somehow seems to work out in the field

Does it? Lets see some proper evidence for it. That is what people are repeatedly stating and you keep ignoring.

So, if we have the claim about detecting water, we can specifically test for that in a way which removes other factors (as several other people have already stated).

However the first thing to do is look at the common claim about the dowsing sticks detecting water, for example. Those can be easily tested in isolation since the claims made for them are so wide ranging that there should be no way the experiment can interfere with them.

This notion of 'failure' in the double blinds that eat_the_pudding mentioned is interesting.  A negative outcome is still an outcome - right?  So does it not suggest from that experiment that there is some interaction, be that idiomotor or other environmental cue that was eliminated by the double blind?

I quite enjoy that the effect is unexplained - the magic stick notion is clearly bollocks, but there is definitely something going on (I've seen examples, but appreciate that the plural of anecdote is not data).  Whether that is wily plumbers, minor land shapes, or what who knows.  The double blind suggest to me that we've ruled out one explanation for the phenomenon, but the others are harder to test.

If you’re happy to do a weekend and feel that you’ve sufficient confidence that it’ll work, I’ll gleefully do it.

Hi Cougar, Fine, no problem. As a test, I’m not keen on digging holes in my garden to “prove” that there’s a cable or water pipe buried somwhere that I know is already there, and know that won’t convince anyone.

I’m not a scientist, and know that you are a tough crowd, but how about; you lay 10(?) identical <span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">carboard tubes on the ground, one of which contains a legth of wire/bottle of water/open to suggestions. Mrs WEJ then attemps to find said item by using two length of wire rods. Happy to repeat several times, but she has mobility problems so movement would have to be limited. Passing an object under the rods seems to cause a reaction, so movement shouldn’t be a problem. Hopefully, we’ll have a bit of time today to try something out.</span>

Happy to consider any other suggestions.

I mean - in the carpark example, i believe the poster said the mains was 'pretty much' where he had marked via dowsing.

How accurate is 'pretty much'? At what point is a marker not 'pretty much' right but 'a bit off'? What number of markers have to be accurate for the whole lot of markers to be considered accurate?

'Pretty much' in many other areas of science, engineering and mathematics wouldn't cut it.

Ignoring the graph axis, looking at the plot - is that 'pretty much' spot on or is that just a line of best fit? Maybe the mains stop cock was at 0,0 and the building on the otherside of the carpark was at 10,100...