Challenge applications

[Explorer]

Here's the problem. You can't exhaust all possbilities. There will always be something else. Maybe it only works if the atmospheric pressure is below (or above) some amount (or not between two amounts). Maybe it only works when the earth is not within 10 degrees in its orbit of perogee or apogee. I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

He will never take our advice, because there will always be an available (but sillier) hypothesis. Since the hypothesis is silly already, he's already broken that barrier and there's nothing to bring him back.

The possibilities will be exhausted when DD decides he has got to that point. He is the self-appointed director of his own project. If he consistently fails to prove anything of note, he will suffer from experimental fatigue, and give up. It is a common human trait for the majority of us. His hypothesis is not "silly". He has tried one single field experiment and it has failed as a vehicle to prove anything tangible. It is "silly" to argue that it is silly at this early stage. DD may end up calling himself silly and perhaps misguided too, but that is his perogative after the event.

 

[EHocking]

Or he will do what all dowsers do and merely declare that he knows it works and scientific proof is not necessary, "because it works for me".

 

[Explorer]

Or he will do what all dowsers do and merely declare that he knows it works and scientific proof is not necessary, "because it works for me".

"all dowsers"?

That is a bit of a sweeping statement. DD doesn't sound like the sort of chap that would say scientific proof is not necessary. On the contrary, he seems to be putting his money where his mouth is, in terms of experimental effort. From what little I know of DD, and only going by his posts, he seems a genuine guy with a thirst for genuine enquiry. Let this run its natural course before making cynical comment, I get the feeling you may be surprised by his final conclusions and own comment, whether he is successful or not.

 

[EHocking]

"all dowsers"?

Yeah. Pretty much.

That is a bit of a sweeping statement. DD doesn't sound like the sort of chap that would say scientific proof is not necessary. On the contrary, he seems to be putting his money where his mouth is, in terms of experimental effort. From what little I know of DD, and only going by his posts, he seems a genuine guy with a thirst for genuine enquiry. Let this run its natural course before making cynical comment, I get the feeling you may be surprised by his final conclusions and own comment,

If he changes his mind, he'll be breaking the mould that's for sure.

whether he is successful or not.

There is little question.
Dowsing just doesn't work.

If it did, the oil and gas business wouldn't be spending billions annually on shooting and analysing seismic and all the geologists would be out of a job (unless they own their own coathangers..).

 

[Pixel42]

His hypothesis is not "silly".

You don't think the hypothesis that ground disturbed in some vaguely specified way can be detected using bent metal rods is silly? What about the hypotheses he's come up with to explain away his failure, how sensible do you think those are?

It is "silly" to argue that it is silly at this early stage.

Early stage?

http://www.skepdic.com/dowsing.html

In 1949, an experiment was conducted in Maine by the American Society for Psychical Research. Twenty-seven dowsers "failed completely to estimate either the depth or the amount of water to be found in a field free of surface clues to water, whereas a geologist and an engineer successfully predicted the depth at which water would be found in 16 sites in the same field...." (Zusne and Jones 1989: 108; reported in Vogt and Hyman: 1967). There have been a few other controlled tests of dowsing and all produced only chance results (ibid.). [In addition to Vogt and Hyman, see R. A. Foulkes (1971) "Dowsing experiments," Nature, 229, pp.163-168); M. Martin (1983-1984). "A new controlled dowsing experiment." Skeptical Inquirer. 8(2), 138-140; J. Randi(1979). "A controlled test of dowsing abilities." Skeptical Inquirer. 4(1). 16-20; and D. Smith (1982). "Two tests of divining in Australia." Skeptical Inquirer. 4(4). 34-37.]

[...]
Typical is what happened when James Randi tested some dowsers using a protocol they all agreed upon. If they could locate water in underground pipes at an 80% success rate they would get $10,000 (now the prize is over $1,000,000). All the dowsers failed the test, though each claimed to be highly successful in finding water using a variety of non-scientific instruments, including a pendulum.

That's over 60 years of tests, most of which would have given a positive result if DowserDon's original hypothesis was correct. DowserDon may have convinced himself that his test was the first of its kind that had been done, but he was very much mistaken - in that, as in so much else.

 

[Explorer]

You don't think the hypothesis that ground disturbed in some vaguely specified way can be detected using bent metal rods is silly? What about the hypotheses he's come up with to explain away his failure, how sensible do you think those are?

For me, like you, it doesn't make sense, but then I have never dowsed for disturbed earth before. Why would I want to? DD claims to have experienced an effect, and he is willing to be subjected to testing, so if he wants to spend his time and money, he is perfectly entitled to do so in his efforts to convince himself and others, one way or another.

His intial reaction and comment relating to the plywood seemed to me to be a kneejerk and ill thought out hypothesis. In the face of failure, unlike experienced politicians, we all tend to come up with this kind of panic response in similar circumstances, I didn't view it as anything else. He said he would try new experiments, and no doubt as a consequence, he will discard his initial plywood theory as a cause of failure.

Early stage?

http://www.skepdic.com/dowsing.html



That's over 60 years of tests, most of which would have given a positive result if DowserDon's original hypothesis was correct. DowserDon may have convinced himself that his test was the first of its kind that had been done, but he was very much mistaken - in that, as in so much else.

I made this comment in the context of the "early stage" for specifically testing DD's abilties or non-abilities as the case may be. I am aware of course, of other historical testing experiments.

I have written before here about a personal observation of a dowsing I experienced a few years ago. Briefly, my boss was re-vamping an area of his rather large garden, and was made aware that a water pipe was running underneath an area of this land which he didn't want to damage during excavation work. Nobody locally knew exactly where this pipe was located under the land. He employed an elderly chap who professed to be a dowser and he proceeded to dowse this square area of land. Using rods similar to DDs, I observed him walking up and down the land following a route as a tractor would plough the land. Each time the rods crossed, he placed a marker in the soil. At the end of the process a straight line route of the supposed buried pipe, was traced across the area of land. This was excavated carefully and the pipe was found to follow this route perfectly. The chap was paid £25, and left.

This is anecdotal I know, and I am not asking you to believe me, but it has coloured my attitude to dowsing to certain extent. Whether this chap could have passed any controlled testing or not, who knows, but what I do know is that he was making some extra cash to supplement his pension, on a regular basis.

 

[Pixel42]

if he wants to spend his time and money, he is perfectly entitled to do so in his efforts to convince himself and others, one way or another.

Indeed, and I don't think anyone (least of all me) has suggested otherwise.

His intial reaction and comment relating to the plywood seemed to me to be a kneejerk and ill thought out hypothesis. In the face of failure, unlike experienced politicians, we all tend to come up with this kind of panic response in similar circumstances, I didn't view it as anything else. He said he would try new experiments, and no doubt as a consequence, he will discard his initial plywood theory as a cause of failure.

We can but hope.

This is anecdotal I know, and I am not asking you to believe me, but it has coloured my attitude to dowsing to certain extent. Whether this chap could have passed any controlled testing or not, who knows, but what I do know is that he was making some extra cash to supplement his pension, on a regular basis.

Good for him.

Water pipes are not laid randomly. One possible explanation is that this guy had a lifetime of experience which enabled him to assess the layout and determine the most probable course, consciously or unconsciously. Or he could have been the guy who originally laid it.

 

[Southwind17]

This is anecdotal I know, and I am not asking you to believe me, but it has coloured my attitude to dowsing to certain extent. Whether this chap could have passed any controlled testing or not, who knows, but what I do know is that he was making some extra cash to supplement his pension, on a regular basis.

You mean just like elderly psychics do?!

 

[Pup]

This is anecdotal I know, and I am not asking you to believe me, but it has coloured my attitude to dowsing to certain extent. Whether this chap could have passed any controlled testing or not, who knows, but what I do know is that he was making some extra cash to supplement his pension, on a regular basis.

I've posted the anecdote where a dowser completely missed a buried electric line, even when we were trying to help him by pointing out how it generally ran, because he insisted it must follow a random dip in the ground. Another guy with actual equipment later found it.

That's the problem with anecdotes. Obviously, dowsing must "work" some of the time, or the idea would just have disappeared, so there are plenty of anecdotes of it "working," and plenty of gullible people to credit the success to dowsing, rather than a combination of common sense and good observation.

If any people were passing double-blind tests, there might be something worth investigating. But they consistently fail. It really does strike me like the perpetual motion machine phenomenon, where one can point out all the previous failures and the theoretical reasons why it's impossible, and yet people will still dedicate their lives to trying to build one, always so close, yet never achieving it, oblivious to all the evidence for why they're failing.

 

[Explorer]

Water pipes are not laid randomly. One possible explanation is that this guy had a lifetime of experience which enabled him to assess the layout and determine the most probable course, consciously or unconsciously. Or he could have been the guy who originally laid it.

Both of these explanations are possible, the first being the more likely, IMHO.

If it was his unconscious, then that would be worthy of testing, as it would have some practical and useful applications.

My anecdote doesn't prove anything, but I mentioned it to demonstrate how it has affected my attitude to DDs efforts, and why I have given him the time of day.

For me to be convinced, I would still like my own example dowser to be tested in the same way as DD.

 

[Explorer]

That's the problem with anecdotes. Obviously, dowsing must "work" some of the time, or the idea would just have disappeared, so there are plenty of anecdotes of it "working," and plenty of gullible people to credit the success to dowsing, rather than a combination of common sense and good observation.

This is a valid point. However, we should expect it to also "work" some of the time when testing, if only as a consequence of coincidence or "luck". It is interesting, at least from the links and references to historical testing on here, that it never "works" under controlled conditions. A statistical fluke perhaps?

 

[wardenclyffe]

For me to be convinced, I would still like my own example dowser to be tested in the same way as DD.

And what work are you doing to convince your dowser to do such a thing? You know both the Australian Skeptics and the IIG in the US have a finder's fee which you can earn if you bring your dowser to them for testing and the dowser passes. Not only would the dowser win a prize, but so would you.

Ward

 

[Pixel42]

This is a valid point. However, we should expect it to also "work" some of the time when testing, if only as a consequence of coincidence or "luck". It is interesting, at least from the links and references to historical testing on here, that it never "works" under controlled conditions. A statistical fluke perhaps?

The whole point of controlled testing is to establish whether it works more often than would be expected as a result of coincidence or luck. It's not that dowsers never identify the right bucket/bottle/barrel/buried pipe in a double blind test, it's that they do so no more often than would be expected by chance.

 

[Southwind17]

If it was his unconscious, then that would be worthy of testing, as it would have some practical and useful applications.

I think you're reading too much into this possibility. 'Unconscious' detection isn't inferring something potentially paranormal, or even special; simply that the dowser has some prior inherent knowledge or incling of where the dowsed object is, or is likely to be, but does not make a conscious effort to determine it. It's no different from driving a car. Upon reaching a level of proficiency one simply accelerates, steers and brakes without consciously thinking about it. It just 'happens' based on knowledge first, then experience.

My anecdote doesn't prove anything, but I mentioned it to demonstrate how it has affected my attitude to DDs efforts, and why I have given him the time of day.

Then it seems you are on a similar path to DD, only your's is a road less travelled (so far). May I suggest you critically reappraise your travel plans lest you wind up blindly searching for the 'Promised Land', with no hope of finding it.

For me to be convinced, I would still like my own example dowser to be tested in the same way as DD.

That's reassuring.

This is a valid point. However, we should expect it to also "work" some of the time when testing, if only as a consequence of coincidence or "luck".

Sorry, that's not 'working'; that's ... well simply coincidence or luck!

It is interesting, at least from the links and references to historical testing on here, that it never "works" under controlled conditions. A statistical fluke perhaps?

'Statistical fluke'? What on Earth do you mean? BTW - are you sure you understand what 'controlled conditions' means?

 

[zooterkin]

The whole point of controlled testing is to establish whether it works more often than would be expected as a result of coincidence or luck. It's not that dowsers never identify the right bucket/bottle/barrel/buried pipe in a double blind test, it's that they do so no more often than would be expected by chance.

It's one of those linguistic things that can lead to confusion. If the dowser identifies the bucket with water no more often than they would by chance, then most of us would say that dowsing didn't work. However, from the dowser's point of view, they may say that it had worked for the buckets they had identified.

 

[Southwind17]

It's one of those linguistic things that can lead to confusion. If the dowser identifies the bucket with water no more often than they would by chance, then most of us would say that dowsing didn't work. However, from the dowser's point of view, they may say that it had worked for the buckets they had identified.

Nothing confusing about that. They may say that it worked, like they may say that the Earth's flat.

 

[Pup]

This is a valid point. However, we should expect it to also "work" some of the time when testing, if only as a consequence of coincidence or "luck". It is interesting, at least from the links and references to historical testing on here, that it never "works" under controlled conditions. A statistical fluke perhaps?

The whole point of having controlled conditions is to eliminate the usual hints, such as shallow depressions left by water line trenches, changes in vegetation that indicate water close to the surface, etc. The goal is to bring it down to purely mathematical odds, so only dowsing could be the cause of getting the right answer more than chance.

The conditions are generally set up so the odds of guessing right by chance alone are maybe 1:1000 or more. So if you looked at over 1,000 controlled tests of dowsers, at least one should get it right by chance alone. That's a lot of tests--no idea if that many controlled tests have actually been performed over the years, but it's possble. If one dowser has passed a controlled test, apparently we just haven't heard about it.

You'd think the one lucky dowser would crow about it, but the next step, of course, would be to test the dowser again, making the odds 1:1,000,000. And apparently all dowsers have failed in subsequent trials, showing that any who passed a first trial did it just by luck, otherwise they could make a career of winning one paranormal prize after another.

After a few million pairs of controlled trials have been done, we'd expect to have a dowser who's passed twice in a row by luck alone. But if dowsing is a real skill, we should have a lot more than that. It doesn't take a million trials of people with metal detectors to find a buried coin; they'll succeed pretty much 1,000 out of 1,000 times, because that's a real skill, not luck.

 

[Explorer]

And what work are you doing to convince your dowser to do such a thing? You know both the Australian Skeptics and the IIG in the US have a finder's fee which you can earn if you bring your dowser to them for testing and the dowser passes. Not only would the dowser win a prize, but so would you.

Ward

Sadly, he is probably dead by now. He was in his 70s when I witnessed the dowsing and that was in the eighties.

 

[Explorer]

I think you're reading too much into this possibility. 'Unconscious' detection isn't inferring something potentially paranormal, or even special; simply that the dowser has some prior inherent knowledge or incling of where the dowsed object is, or is likely to be, but does not make a conscious effort to determine it. It's no different from driving a car. Upon reaching a level of proficiency one simply accelerates, steers and brakes without consciously thinking about it. It just 'happens' based on knowledge first, then experience.

I never said "unconscious" detection was paranormal or even "special". I simply said it may be worthy of testing, even if to prove your own hypothesis above on this, or otherwise.

Then it seems you are on a similar path to DD, only your's is a road less travelled (so far). May I suggest you critically reappraise your travel plans lest you wind up blindly searching for the 'Promised Land', with no hope of finding it.

I am expecting DD to give up, eventually. Why are you reading more than that in my post?

That's reassuring.

I am reassured that you are reassured!

'Statistical fluke'? What on Earth do you mean? BTW - are you sure you understand what 'controlled conditions' means?

Is the wrong response!

Others who have posted in response to that have provided calm and intelligent comment, and I thank them for it.

 

[Southwind17]

I never said "unconscious" detection was paranormal or even "special". I simply said it may be worthy of testing, even if to prove your own hypothesis above on this, or otherwise.

So what, exactly, would you propose is tested for, that people do things unconsciously? No need - happens all of the time. Ask anyone who drives a car.

I am expecting DD to give up, eventually. Why are you reading more than that in my post?

Because of this:

Let this run its natural course before making cynical comment, I get the feeling you may be surprised by his final conclusions and own comment, whether he is successful or not.

... and this:

This is anecdotal I know, and I am not asking you to believe me, but it has coloured my attitude to dowsing to certain extent.

Is the wrong response!

Others who have posted in response to that have provided calm and intelligent comment, and I thank them for it.

No need to get upset - I'm just trying to check your understanding of statistics and controlled testing. It seems you don't quite grasp them, that's all.