• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Challenge applications

So is there any test which would make you decide that you have no dowsing ability, or would every test just suggest a further refinement in order to prove you have it on the next test?
 
DowserDon said:
I’m surprised that no-one who claims to be unbiased has pointed out how the ideomotor effect could be invoked to confirm my view that the protocol I developed was at fault.
Click to expand...
The whole point of the test was to confirm or eliminate the ideomotor effect as the source of the dowsing response you experience.

If the dowsing response is not due to the ideomotor effect but to a genuine "signal" from the trenches then you would get a positive response in both the unblinded test and from the correct position in the blinded one.

If the dowsing response is due to the ideomotor effect then you would get a positive response in the unblinded test but an essentially random response from the walkways.

The latter is what you got.

ETA for completeness: If the dowsing response is due to the detection of an external "signal" but your trenches have not managed to simulate that signal adequately then you would not get a response in either the unblinded or blinded test.

1) I and a couple of others detected the old (>100year-old) disturbances that were not covered by plywood.
Click to expand...
Exactly as you would expect when unblinded, if the dowsing response is due to the ideomotor effect. You got a response where you expected to get one, the others got the same response where they had seen you get one.

2) The ideomotor effect could explain my detection of the “standard” where I knew a trench had been dug.
Click to expand...
It not only could, it does.

3) I could not detect the other trenches where they were covered by plywood.
Click to expand...
You could not detect the other trenches because you did not know where they were, so your unconscious mind had no information to work on and therefore generated the ideomotor effect randomly instead of where the trenches were.

One interpretation of those three events is that plywood inhibits detection.
Click to expand...
Good grief.
 
Last edited:
Why wasn't the unblinded test exactly the same as the blinded one in terms of plywood (but not in terms of the information given, "the target is here.")?
 
Paul2 said:
Why wasn't the unblinded test exactly the same as the blinded one in terms of plywood (but not in terms of the information given, "the target is here.")?
Click to expand...

I think it was - the "standard" trench, as described by Dowser Don. He thinks he got a response to that through the ideomotor effect...
 
DowserDon said:
I’m surprised that no-one who claims to be unbiased has pointed out how the ideomotor effect could be invoked to confirm my view that the protocol I developed was at fault.
Click to expand...
Are you now claiming that the ideomotor effect is responsible for the true positives in the unblinded test, but is somehow absent in the blinded test?
 
DowserDon said:
One interpretation of those three events is that plywood inhibits detection. It had been used, not for my benefit, but to successfully mask the earth works.
Click to expand...

You knew rather early before testing it would be plywood. You did not object at any stage. (Or did you? If yes, you should have changed for some other material that you found to be definitely pro-dowsing). After all this rather massive preparation work and a very finely done test, to use the plywood as a possible excuse is - I lack the words.
 
Saule said:
You knew rather early before testing it would be plywood. You did not object at any stage. (Or did you? If yes, you should have changed for some other material that you found to be definitely pro-dowsing). After all this rather massive preparation work and a very finely done test, to use the plywood as a possible excuse is - I lack the words.
Click to expand...

The plywood was DowserDon's idea in the first place.

Ward
 
wardenclyffe said:
The plywood was DowserDon's idea in the first place.

Ward
Click to expand...

Talk about bad luck. Choosing an 'anti-dowsing' material for one's dowsing test.

A lesson to be taken from this case: if the tested person chooses a material ask him to ascertain that the tested person is sure that the material does not obstruct anything for them. Well, it is done usually, This time it was a bit different, as it was a self-performed test.
 
Last edited:
steenkh said:
Are you now claiming that the ideomotor effect is responsible for the true positives in the unblinded test, but is somehow absent in the blinded test?
Click to expand...
The implication of what he seems to be suggesting is that whenever a dowser knows that he should be getting a response (which would cover almost all his much vaunted experiences) it's the ideomotor effect that generates that response, regardless of whether an external signal is actually being either generated or successfully detected.

When the dowser does not know whether he should be getting a response he gets strong responses at random, judging by what happened when (according to him) the real signals were inhibited by sheets of plywood. Which means dowsing is utterly useless, as far as I can see, as there would be so many false positives there would be no way to tell which were the true ones.
 
DowserDon, let me make sure I understand.

You're saying that in the absence of a "true" signal in the unblinded test (because the plywood blocked it) then the ideomotor effect took over. And in the blinded test, the plywood was still blocking the signal, but since you didn't know where the trenches were the ideomotor effect did not work.

If I'm understanding correctly, then I guess this is possible. But you must admit that the odds seem long against it.

If this were the case, then in any test where the true signal was absent in a small area, then why doesn't the ideomotor effect kick in and give a false reading? It seems you would have noticed this "muddying of the waters" previously in your dowsing.

And for this to work out in such a way that the unblinded test worked exactly as you thought a "true" detection would work seems, well, somewhat convenient.

Again, I applaud that you have returned to talk about the test, and I would certainly urge further controlled testing.

Do you have any thoughts on how to eliminate the plywood problem?
 
Mashuna said:
It's a nice change from gold leaf.
Click to expand...
Dowsers do seem to be very predictable. It was inevitable that the excuses would come out at some point, instead of gold leaf(which turned out to be paint) , or gold hidden in the walls, we have plywood.

There is one difference, instead of saying that he wasn't really confident after the open test, a la Edge, he seems to be saying that the ideomotor effect is responsible, which is perfectly reasonable. The question then becomes why he doesn't think the ideomotor effect is responsible for all of his results.
 
If DowserDon now modifies the protocol and eliminates plywood as a covering, and then tries some other material for the covering, and then runs into the same problem, we might spend a long time trying to find a suitable covering. If *every* covering produces similar results, could we conclude that it's always the ideomotor effect?

DowserDon, what type of test results would convince you that it's always the ideomotor effect?
 
Paul2 said:
DowserDon, what type of test results would convince you that it's always the ideomotor effect?
Click to expand...

This to me is the key question. Is there any possible result that would convince dowserdon that dowsing wasn't real? I think it's really important that dowserdon ask himself that question and really try to answer it honestly, if only to himself.

If there isn't, then we're dealing with blind faith and it seems fruitless to continue bothering to test.
 
Saule said:
Why? As a lifelong hobby to train not admitting? Or am I being too pesimistic :)
Click to expand...
Perhaps pessimistic, but given how many dowsing tests there have been with essentially identical results, not really surprising.

But DowserDon did take a fair test, one that was partly (largely?) his design. He didn't cheat (when I believe there was a possibility to), and has not tried to deny the results. He is saying the reason for the result is different than what we think, but at least seems to be still thinking of how to further test. And he has remained completely civil in his discussions here.

This is so much more than 99.99% of the people who think they can in some way win the JREF prize, that it's hard to simply write him off.

ronin688 said:
This to me is the key question. Is there any possible result that would convince dowserdon that dowsing wasn't real? I think it's really important that dowserdon ask himself that question and really try to answer it honestly, if only to himself.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. While the results are not 100% conclusive, certainly they should be enough to merit asking yourself this question.

ronin688 said:
If there isn't, then we're dealing with blind faith and it seems fruitless to continue bothering to test.
Click to expand...
Also true, I think. If there is no test that can change his mind, then there really is no sense in pursuing it.
 
To summarise: if DowserDon is going to continue to claim that he can tell the difference between disturbed and undisturbed ground by dowsing despite the results of his test, he needs to come up with a plausible hypothesis which explains

1) why, in that case, he failed to get a positive response above the disturbed ground on the walkways

2) why, in that case and in the light of his explanation for (1), he did get a positive response in the unblinded test

3) why, in that case and in the light of his explanations for (1) and (2), he did get a clear positive response from several places on the walkways where there was no disturbed ground

So far he has offered the hypothesis that plywood inhibited the signal his dowsing detects to explain (1) and invoked the ideomotor effect to explain (2); he has yet to offer any kind of explanation for (3).

If and when he manages to come up with an hypothesis which explains all three of his test results whilst remaining consistent with his original claim, he then needs to design a new test protocol which takes his hypothesis into account whilst also demonstrating that he can, by dowsing, detect the difference between disturbed and undisturbed ground significantly more often than would be expected by chance in a blinded test.

Clearly he has his work cut out.

Alternatively he could accept that his well designed and carefully executed test successfully established exactly what it set out to establish - whether or not he really could tell the difference between disturbed and undisturbed ground by dowsing - and that the answer was no. But it seems clear that there is no test, no matter how definitive and clear cut its results, which would persuade him to do that.
 
Hey Don, glad to see the test went off. Looking at the picture, I'm impressed with the quality of the work the diggers did. It's also great to see that the atmosphere remained friendly throughout.

But from over here, it looks like you have the evidence you need to discard dowsing. There's a reason every blinded test ever done on dowsing comes up negative: dowsing is just a result of the ideomotor effect. That's all there is to it, and the sooner you accept that, the sooner you can get on with other things that make more sense. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom