And this is where I'm struggling with the denial from the usual suspects that dowsing exists as being possible!
Ive tried it, it didn't work for me, however I then called in someone who said they might be able to help and bingo! Where the rods failed to even stir a little for me, they became very animated in the hands of someone else, with incredible accuracy, which was finding a water supply pipe that went under a sizeable meadow, but we had no clue as to where it was. This has been repeated on two further occasions. So, from my own verifiable first hand account, dowsing is something I cannot do or replicate, however, I have witnessed it being both effective and accurate on three occasions ( all of which, there were no clues as to where the pipe had been buried or the route it followed).
So for those who bang on about it being psychic woo-woo, unverifiable unscientific bollox, I'm calling out as being closed minded and fearful. I cant explain how it works, anymore than I can gravity ffs, I'm merely accepting that there are some things which we do not understand, or our knowledge and understanding has been lost in the mists of time and our contemporary need to have everything explained by science. I don't believe the Universe is fully explainable from the human construct anyway. Completely arrogant to assume it does/is.
Anecdotes are not proof and it is not closed minded to say so. To dismiss proper controlled trials is very closed minded.
I'm not dismissing the proper controlled trials per se. I'm questioning their validity to a point but more so the resultant attitudes of dismissal for something when the results contradict many more personal (anecdotal) real life observations. More to the point, I'm also questioning the strict adherence to the results and conclusion by some people, when personal experiences are presented, and I'm suggesting that to be a little more flexible and less dogmatic might be a healthier approach.
Allow me to repeat the quote I presented earlier in this thread, from an actual proper scientist, and hopefully, it's gist will be understood this time around:
What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.
Let's make it a little easier: Humans are very good, but to assume what we observe is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth is astronomically arrogant.
This is really simple.
If it worked, it should be readily demonstrable under controlled conditions. To date it hasn't been, and as others have said "evidence" is not the plural of "anecdote." Does that mean it doesn't work? Of course not.
I’m just finding the ideomotor effect interesting, never come across it before, shall read up on it when I’m more awake. As I mentioned, the second time I had a go I really wanted to prove the dowser bloke wrong so I gripped the rods tight and tried to resist the twisting motion when it started, so I was actively thinking to myself ‘do not twist’, I’m intrigued to find out more so I can figure out why my brain still made those things turn
Here's a fun experiment, you'll like this.
Get a paperclip. Attach it to a length of cotton maybe a foot long, and suspend it from your fingertips like a pendulum. Do not move your hand. Now, concentrate on it and imagine it swinging gently left and right, left and right, do not move your hand. Do that for a couple of minutes, then imagine it stopping and swinging back and forth instead. DO NOT MOVE YOUR HAND.
Do that and then come back to me and tell me you still don't understand how divining "works."
If the scientific community want to dismiss the practioners (who in some contexts operate in a results oriented industry) they need to do better than dismissing it without thoroughly proving what is happening rather than the current unproven hypothesises and sweeping generalisations put forward to explain
...
So for those who bang on about it being psychic woo-woo, unverifiable unscientific bollox, I’m calling out as being closed minded and fearful. I cant explain how it works, anymore than I can gravity ffs, I’m merely accepting that there are some things which we do not understand,
HOW it works (assuming it does) is an irrelevance at this point, it's a misdirection, the question is IF it works. And the burden of proof here lies with the practitioners and believers, not that nasty close-minded scientific community. Once it's proven to work, then we can start to worry about potential mechanisms.
No-one with half a brain would contest the notion that there are many things we don't understand, but that doesn't mean we get to make up any old shit and go "I'm right unless you prove me wrong then." I don't understand how gravity works either, but I know with pretty cast-iron certainty that if I drop an apple then it'll hit the floor. Moreover, I know that if you or anyone else drops an apple then they'll also experience near-identical results.
If you're then going to argue that anti-gravity apples might exist because your uncle Dave told you he'd dropped one once and it'd floated* then the logical conclusion here isn't "hmm, I wonder how he did that?"
we bent a couple of brazing rods and moved towards a sink of water and they move towards each other and cross over. Strange but it did happen!
You managed to divine water where you already knew there was water? Have a think about that and then get back to us.
*
it's the internet version of the double blind design 😉
Have the people that claim ‘I’ve seen it with my own eyes so it must work’ ever seen a magic trick? You know, the sort of thing that Paul Daniels used to do.
And this is where I’m struggling with the denial from the usual suspects that dowsing exists as being possible!
You could try reading what people have been saying.
but to assume what we observe is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth is astronomically arrogant.
So does Heisenberg's warning about reality vs how we perceive that reality not also apply to the anecdotal observers who state with certainty that dowsing is a real phenomenon?
Local council had to find a pipe running under the rural road next to my parents house and to my mum's surprise they used divining rods, walked along the road, found it, marked it, cut the tarmac and even got the angle of how it crossed perfectly right, inch perfect. Keep meaning to try it myself. And I'm a real professional scientist with two science degrees omg omg teh haterz
So does Heisenberg’s warning about reality vs how we perceive that reality
That's not quite what he said - he wasn't making a philosophical observation. It has a formula and a mathematical definition relating to wave equations.
Local council had to find a pipe running under the rural road next to my parents house and to my mum’s surprise they used divining rods,
If I worked for the local council I'd take great delight in using divining rods in public to find water pipes, right after I'd just looked up where the pipe lay on the very accurate GIS map I had.
right after I’d just looked up where the pipe lay on the very accurate GIS map I had.
Not done much work in utilities have you?
Some people have a vested interest in making folk believe in things like divining and homeopathy as they are multi million pound industries, but they're not qaint harmless olde worlde fun, they rip people off and have led to countless deaths.
As an example the Iraqis bought two lots of divining rod bomb detectors for £52m (£37,000 each) a complete waste of money which led to false confidence at roadblocks and thousands of people being killed and injured in devastating car bomb attacks in Bagdad without the bombers being detected by the divining rod devices.
Not done much work in utilities have you?
I chuckled too 🙂
Sadly I don't have a wire coat hanger in the house, but happy for someone to come up with a scientific protocol for me to follow when I do get round to it and I can record the results. including me talking to the rods.
I have a soggy lawn and want to work out if or where a drainage pipe maybe, and then dig down to see if it is damage.
Its to the side of the house so not big, about 6m by 15m at a guess.
I approve of the use of a coat hanger, This thread has too many hands barely constraining too many powerfully quivering rods
That’s not quite what he said
Ah, OK, I've got the wrong end of the stick then. What did Heisenberg mean, and how does it relate to the debate about dowsing?
I have a soggy lawn and want to work out if or where a drainage pipe maybe, and then dig down to see if it is damage.
Skip the rods and just have a look at the ground.
Admittedly works less well this time of year but you would be looking for things like dips in the ground and patches of grass which are greener than others.
No one (at least I dont think so) is saying that people cant spot leaking pipes/springs etc in certain circumstances. Its just that the claimed mechanism of the rods is false.
I approve of the use of a coat hanger, This thread has too many hands barely constraining too many powerfully quivering rods
"I touch myself" was a song by the Divinyls.
Makes you think.
What did Heisenberg mean, and how does it relate to the debate about dowsing?
Well, particles can also be considered waves, right? But waves are looong things that cover a lot of space, and particles are small things that are in one place. You know the energy of a wave perfectly (a function of its frequency) but not its location - it covers a large area. So you can model a particle as waves super imposed such that there's a big blip in the middle and wibbly bits to either side. The blip is the most likely place for the particle to be, cos it's the biggest blip. If you add more and more waves of different frequencies to the model you get a sharper blip so you know the location better. However, adding more different frequencies means you no longer know exactly what the energy is (energy being related to momentum, if it's a particle). That's the trade-off Heisenberg noted - just to do with the maths.
The thing about observing is related to how things seem to be waves or particles depending on how you measure them. So if you do a wave measuring experiment you 'resolve' the thing into a wave, which means you know its energy very well but not is location; whereas if you do a particle measuring experiment you resolve it into a particle, which means you get more information on its location at the expense of its energy.
The concept of having to interact with something to measure it is called the observer effect, which is different. If for example you want to measure the voltage of a battery, you need a tiny bit of current to activate your voltmeter. And when a current flows, there a drop in voltage across the battery terminals. But this is inevitable in order to make your voltmeter work.
...so you're saying is it's all kind of energy, yeah? No need to make it complicated. And that's how the council finds pipes with coat hangers. Just don't ask for blind testing 'cause it's all uncertain. The end.
Someone close to me used to work for a large water-drilling specialist. He is the most ardent skeptic I think I've ever encountered, and a great fan of the empirical, reductionist process - yet even he admitted to me once that when the guys with the geo-wotsit machines had drawn a blank on a site it was then that they called in the old guy with the woo-woo rods. So unless they were paying money to the man simply for shits and giggles I'm going to have to raise an eyebrow towards the possibility that anecdotes exist.
If the guys from the water company were waving anything other than one of these
https://www.schonstedt.com/find-underground/cast-or-ductile-iron-pipes/
they were having a laugh.
…so you’re saying is it’s all kind of energy, yeah?
No.
He is the most ardent skeptic I think I’ve ever encountered,
...
it was then that they called in the old guy with the woo-woo rods.
I'm not sure as I follow the logic here. If "they" (someone else) called a diviner then it doesn't matter how sceptical your friend is? Or was that a gender-unspecific "they" and you mean it was your friend who made the decision?
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.
