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...
