Challenge applications

[Olowkow]

You will be attending on 25th March, so you will have the opportunity to see dowsing under field conditions. There are areas in the field where handheld dowsing rods swing. You will have the opportunity to try them yourself. These sites have been there for years. My difficulty is in simulating these in a fortnight. Digging will start this weekend - an excavator has been hired.

http://www.dowserdon.info

Apologies if I have missed something here, but....

Why not simply use the existing areas and do the test blindfolded?

There are too many opportunities for cheating when digging new sites. How can you ever prove to the satisfaction of skeptics that you didn't pay someone to sneak around at midnight to photograph the site?

Also, walking over plywood that is on solid ground sounds different from stepping on a sheet over a hole.

 

[realpaladin]

Apologies if I have missed something here, but....

Why not simply use the existing areas and do the test blindfolded?

There are too many opportunities for cheating when digging new sites. How can you ever prove to the satisfaction of skeptics that you didn't pay someone to sneak around at midnight to photograph the site?

Also, walking over plywood that is on solid ground sounds different from stepping on a sheet over a hole.

That last part has been addressed: the trenches are filled back in.

Also, if and when the real test occurs, Don has no activity in it.

 

[steenkh]

If you'd read the background to this forum, you'd have seen that I do not believe in the supernatural at all. At all, OK?

You wrote that "it is purely a test of whether or not a dowser receives supernatural help". In my comment I meant to use sarcasm, and not imply that you really believe in supernatural help. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

But my point still stands: the dowsers had the opportunity to test if their skills worked when unblinded. If they could not dowse successfully under these circumstances they could declare the protocol incompatible with their dowsing abilities and pull out. They did not do it because they found that they could dowse under these circumstances. They only failed when they did not know where the target was.

As Pixel42 points out, your claim is different from theirs, and you cannot criticise their protocol.

 

[bluesjnr]

That last part has been addressed: the trenches are filled back in.

Also, if and when the real test occurs, Don has no activity in it.

AKA, read the friggin' thread.

 

[Pixel42]

AKA, read the friggin' thread.

To be fair the idea that DowserDon be blindfolded to ensure he doesn't pick up visual clues as to the location of the trench (and to enable trenches to be re-used even after their location has been identified) is original, at least I don't remember it being suggested before (it's a long thread).

I'm not sure how practical it is, though, I suspect DowserDon may feel he needs to see how his dowsing rods are reacting in order to identify the trench rather than rely on someone telling him. Plus we know how unreliable blindfolds can be.

 

[EHocking]

DowserDon is of course operating under the assumption that dowsing works, so if he fails to find a trench it's because he hasn't simulated the conditions under which it works accurately enough.

Yes, I read his last post as a series of pre-excuses for failing this test (when read as a cynical sceptic).

"I don't know how deep or how wide a 1 metre trench needs to be for me to guarantee to find it.
The test on the 25th March will have some variety in how the trench has
been prepared and how hidden from view."
​

As someone who has yet to be convinced it works under any conditions, I observe the apparent inconsistency of his results as he attempts to find the right ones with interest.

Given that he looks like he's still trying to find a ditch that he can find boggled I am losing confidence that much will be achieved by the test later this month.

But to be fair-minded about this, I should reserve judgement until the results are in.

My only problem is that, with differently "made" targets, this is no longer a double-blind test. If he finds one and not the others, the automatic response will be to dismiss the failures because of the way they were constructed.

Essentially he has reduced the odds against his success from 3 x 10 : 1, to 10:1, with 2 "do overs".

 

[Pixel42]

My only problem is that, with differently "made" targets, this is no longer a double-blind test. If he finds one and not the others, the automatic response will be to dismiss the failures because of the way they were constructed.

A valid concern, and one I share.

If DowserDon does convince himself that it's worth proceeding with his application for the JREF MDC on the basis of what are actually muddied and inconclusive results, that would quickly be discovered in formal testing so there would be no long term harm done (other than to his bank balance). But it would be a shame, after all the effort that's been put in to come up with a meaningful test.

Of course it's possible this test will produce a clearly positive result that really does justify further testing. As unlikely as I consider that to be, I'm a good enough sceptic not to rule it out.

 

[EHocking]

A valid concern, and one I share.

If DowserDon does convince himself that it's worth proceeding with his application for the JREF MDC on the basis of what are actually muddied and inconclusive results, that would quickly be discovered in formal testing so there would be no long term harm done (other than to his bank balance). But it would be a shame, after all the effort that's been put in to come up with a meaningful test.

Of course it's possible this test will produce a clearly positive result that really does justify further testing. As unlikely as I consider that to be, I'm a good enough sceptic not to rule it out.

I'm with you in spirit on this, but I cannot see how a clear result, positive or negative, can be gleaned from what is in effect a 1:10 chance, tried 3 times.
All it can do is exaggerate his confirmation bias.

It's the difference between claiming you can roll a 6 on a die three times in a row and claiming, in three rolls, a 6 will show up.

Anyway - as you say, it's his cash to waste.

 

[DowserDon]

Apologies if I have missed something here, but....

Why not simply use the existing areas and do the test blindfolded?

I need to see that the rods are parallel to the earth when starting. They remain like this for quite large distances, around a mile when walking on cliffs see www.dowserdon.info and only for a few metres was there any disturbance. I couldn't be sure that they were horizontal if blindfolded.

A self test does not need odds. It is to develop a protocol. I'm not attempting to persuade anyone I can dowse in the field with my trenches. (I will show everyone present some areas of the field where I always get a response but I still don't expect anyone to believe in dowsing). The trenches are being dug by hiring a not inexpensive excavator. To me the best use of that investment is to dig different types of trenches and use different techniques to hide where the digger has been so that I can better specify how I want the Preliminary JREF, ASKE and IIG tests to be constructed.
As I will not take a trip out to LA to spy out the land in such a large city it would be a waste of my time and money to cheat at this stage. I expect that I will fail, or scutineers will identify some construction marks on at least one trench. That design will be rejected. I will build on any success.

 

[realpaladin]

Don, I for one understand.

The 25th is not the grand test for JREF, it is practicing on how/what for all involved.

The advantage being that if and when the real tst comes there will be no crying 'foul' one way or another.

But, do read the comments well, because that will be going through the minds of skeptical onlookers.

 

[Paul2]

A self test does not need odds. It is to develop a protocol. I'm not attempting to persuade anyone I can dowse in the field with my trenches.

So if you successfully dowse to some extent in this exercise, you will not claim that you successfully dowsed? That is, if the test is not designed to test for dowsing, but merely to develop a protocol that would test for dowsing, then any results cannot be used either way (to claim success or to show failure).

Agreed?

 

[Pixel42]

A self test does not need odds. It is to develop a protocol. I'm not attempting to persuade anyone I can dowse in the field with my trenches. (I will show everyone present some areas of the field where I always get a response but I still don't expect anyone to believe in dowsing). The trenches are being dug by hiring a not inexpensive excavator. To me the best use of that investment is to dig different types of trenches and use different techniques to hide where the digger has been so that I can better specify how I want the Preliminary JREF, ASKE and IIG tests to be constructed.

OK I can understand this, but it's a little disappointing given that the original raison d'etre for this pre-testing was to do a dry run of a scaled-down version of your test protocol (which, lest we forget, you were confident was already suitable for formal testing) . It was only at the urging of myself and others that you included an unblinded test in your test protocol at all, now the entire exercise on March 25th seems to be designed to find one that works.

I'm afraid I've completely lost track of how many possible dowsing positions and trenches there are going to be, but I do think it would be worth your setting targets, if only in your own mind, for what your next step should be in the light of the various possible outcomes. I strongly advise you to decide what the criteria should be for the outcomes listed before March 25th:

Outcome 1: Proceed confidently with next stage of testing

Outcome 2: Do more self testing to identify the kind of trench you can consistently find by dowsing

Outcome 3: Conclude that dowsing does not work and there's no point in spending any more of your hard earned money on it

 

[DowserDon]

JREF would not accept the results of the forthcoming test as being their Preliminary Test. I have followed the helpful suggestions from Forum members to construct a Self Test first. I'm using this self test to find an acceptably rigorous protocol, still to be discussed and agreed with a JREF appointed assessor. One of the reasons for variation within the various treatments of the dowsing area is for others, especially Pixel 42 who will be representing your interests, to assess whether there are any visual clues left that might indicate where the trenches have been dug.
For example, one walkway of ten possible positions for a trench, will be covered with builders black polythene sheet as used beneath concrete floors, a very robust material but will it be adequate to completely obscure the digging. Another is shuttering plywood 18mm thick. I'm sure no none will see through that but will I be able to dowse through it. Another test walkway will be stripped of all grass and the surface churned to hide the working. Thus the variations are mainly for the benefit of the assessors rather than for me. If they can detect one trench, that is the whole of that variation
removed from my test, so I cannot in advance say whether the odds will be 1000:1, 100:1 or even 10:1.
There will also be another test. When I walk across an area where I detect a signal and my rods move, I am only crossing a 2' width but I do not know whether I am receiving a signal that has been generated by a 20' or longer disturbance. So there is a 20' trench being dug and backfilled for me to detect.
The plywood sheets are 4' x 4'. So this large trench will equate to 5 sheets of ply.
It will be hidden along a walkway 10 sheets long (there isn't space for it to be dug widthwise and it would require an enormous amount of material to hide it). I'm proposing to try dowsing positions 1 and 10, 2 and 9 etc until I can locate it. It will then be of interest (at least to me) whether I can detect something 5 sheets long or whether it will appear somewhat shorter.
The other trenches will have trenches only 3' across (designed to be hidden beneath ply 4' across). Should I fail to detect any of these, the results of the 20' trench might be useful in designing the next test. Hopefully this will not be necessary.
It seemed to be a good use of the hire time of the excavator.
Thanks for your help and criticism.

 

[Pixel42]

OK that's actually sounding pretty good. Much better than the impression I'd got from recent posts.

Perhaps it would help if I summarise the possible categories of outcome.

1. The observers cannot identify any of the trenches but DowserDon successfully locates all three 3' trenches and the 20' one.

2. DowserDon successfully locates all three 3' trenches and the 20' one, but the observers also identify some (but not all) of them.

3. The observers cannot identify any of the trenches but DowserDon successfully locates some of them

4. The observers identify some trenches and so does DowserDon, and they are the same ones.

5. The observers identify some trenches and so does DowserDon, but they are different ones.

6. DowserDon does not successfully locate any of the trenches.

I do think it would be worth DowserDon deciding in advance what his next step should be in each case.

ETA: I'm still not clear what, if any, unblinded testing will be done on March 25th. Will there be at least one trench whose position is marked and known for you to verify that your dowsing rods react to it?

 

[DowserDon]

Thanks. Good summary, Pixel 42.
There will be one covered trench whose position I know, referred to as my standard.
What will I do in each of the instances? Discuss with the three Profs and other knowledgeable and interested parties. I promise I won't run away. If anywhere near being successful, I will also discuss a possible signal source and bodily receptor.
The other event, irrespective of the test outcome, will be to show all present how to dowse over real, natural, signals. This is where I expect the ideomotor effect to rear its head. The majority of people I've shown how to dowse have been curious and open minded and have quickly learned how to do it. There will be a non-typical selection of the population present. I do not necessarily expect such a success rate. I expect the idea to be so repugnant to some, that they will fail. We'll see.
Let's hope I'm wrong.

 

[Paul2]

I'm using this self test to find an acceptably rigorous protocol, still to be discussed and agreed with a JREF appointed assessor.

This is what confuses me, and is related to my earlier post,:

So if you successfully dowse to some extent in this exercise, you will not claim that you successfully dowsed? That is, if the test is not designed to test for dowsing, but merely to develop a protocol that would test for dowsing, then any results cannot be used either way (to claim success or to show failure).

Agreed?

A test that is actually run doesn't seem necessary to find an acceptably rigorous protocol. When you negotiate with JREF for a MDC protocol, there will be no actual running of a test in order to find an acceptably rigorous protocol. That can be done merely by thinking about what is necessary from a logical and scientific standpoint (to some extent).

The purpose of running a test before a MDC preliminary test would seem to be a results-oriented purpose; whether the dowser, to his or her own satisfaction, can do what they claim.

If this is too pedantic a distinction, please let me know. Otherwise, I'm afraid that this test, if loosely set up because it's only a method to find a protocol, might still be used as if it was a valid protocol if results are positive.

I'm willing to be talked down on this one.

 

[realpaladin]

This is what confuses me, and is related to my earlier post,:

A test that is actually run doesn't seem necessary to find an acceptably rigorous protocol. When you negotiate with JREF for a MDC protocol, there will be no actual running of a test in order to find an acceptably rigorous protocol. That can be done merely by thinking about what is necessary from a logical and scientific standpoint (to some extent).

The purpose of running a test before a MDC preliminary test would seem to be a results-oriented purpose; whether the dowser, to his or her own satisfaction, can do what they claim.

If this is too pedantic a distinction, please let me know. Otherwise, I'm afraid that this test, if loosely set up because it's only a method to find a protocol, might still be used as if it was a valid protocol if results are positive.

I'm willing to be talked down on this one.

I think, to avoid confusion on 'test'... this is on instigation of DowserDon, his financials *and* he agreed to neither call it 'JREF success' nor 'JREF failure' whatever the outcome.

He simply has no idea how his 'abilities' will hold when tested.

So he wants to figure out if it 'works' and JREF can use the opportunity to find any flaws in the protocol to be negotiated.

 

[DowserDon]

An early subscriber to this forum wrote, "Words, words, words.....when shall we see some action". Action 25th March. I will write to this forum after then but assessment of the results will be done by others. There are at least two Profs., Pixel 42 and others who will summarise the test, its shortcomings and its achievements.
To condense this lengthy forum:- I was persuaded to conduct a self test using my best method. Best is always a relative term, ask Rolls Royce. Since the forum started I've honed the construction details, so I'm grateful for the stimulus to self test in the field.
Do I have any doubts - no. Do I have any concerns - yes. Health; weather for the test; Moles - false positives (if these arrive, I will walk around outside the walkways and subtract any signals I detect from the locality); sunspot activity (as no one knows how dowsing works, I postulated that it might be something to do with variation in earth potentials - what do sunspots sometimes eject - protons. What are these known to affect - earth potentials). This list will doubtless be read by some as a list of get out clauses. To me as a life long experimentalist - they are a list of my concerns, not a reason to cancel. They show knowledge and prudence, not blind faith or blind scepticism.
What do I do if my present tests fail? I will look to improve the simulation of nature that I have had constructed and then present it for testing by JREF but don't have a postmortem until after I'm dead.
I will resume reading and writing on this Forum's post on 26th March. Enjoy life.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Do I have any doubts - no.

Bad starting point.

Do I have any concerns - yes. Health; weather for the test; Moles - false positives (if these arrive, I will walk around outside the walkways and subtract any signals I detect from the locality);

sunspot activity (as no one knows how dowsing works, I postulated that it might be something to do with variation in earth potentials - what do sunspots sometimes eject - protons. What are these known to affect - earth potentials).

No. Earth potentials are not affected by protons from the sun.

This list will doubtless be read by some as a list of get out clauses. To me as a life long experimentalist - they are a list of my concerns, not a reason to cancel. They show knowledge and prudence, not blind faith or blind scepticism.

No. They show lack of knowledge. Since you haven't a clue about how your supposed ability works, anything can be thought to interfere with it; temperature, radio signals, the presense of skeptics, garlic, leprechauns .......

This is exactly the reason why a proper trial must include a non-blinded run: To show that the given set-up works for you.

What do I do if my present tests fail? I will look to improve the simulation of nature that I have had constructed and then present it for testing by JREF but don't have a postmortem until after I'm dead.

There is no reason to continue if you have already decided that nothing will shake your faith. You will always fail, and you will never learn.

Hans

 

[realpaladin]

No. They show lack of knowledge. Since you haven't a clue about how your supposed ability works, anything can be thought to interfere with it; temperature, radio signals, the presense of skeptics, garlic, leprechauns .......

Now I know why I can't dowse! Ah well, too bad... I loves me garlic!