Dowsing will never go away

[vman0909]

It was very kind of you to respond. I spent 5 wonderful weeks in Norway and saw a 22 hour day there.

I have turned down a million dollars before for the sake of priciple (my wife has never forgiven me). That money is not there to prove unexplained reality. It is there to be a "put up or shut up" for people trying to exploit other people.

Your comment about me "doubting my ability" is completely understandable based of most of the claims that I seen on this site. My entire point is that I what I believe to be true has nothing to do with ability. Anybody can do it.

Your kind comments did not include what would convince you that dowsing has at least one viable application. Your objectivity would be very much appreciated.

 

[vman0909]

Bob believes his claim and I have seen results that support his belief. Mine is quite a bit less agressive, but I am willing to put up (see my post). My position is a little different in that I will submit to the million dollar criteria, as long as my claim is seen as not being supernatural and therefore, NOT qualifed for the money.

Your disbelief is understandable and I can not yet prove that you (and maybe we) are wrong about it. Help me design the experiment and let old boy alone. Your words :"put up or shut up". Please, take this in the most positive way possible.

I want to prove or disprove dowsing beyond a doubt. Help me do so

 

[Pixel42]

My position is a little different in that I will submit to the million dollar criteria, as long as my claim is seen as not being supernatural and therefore, NOT qualifed for the money.

The JREF challenge is for testing claims of the paranormal, and dowsing is considered paranormal and therefore qualifies for the challenge. If you pass the test there will undoubtedly be much research into how you did so and, if you're right, a non-paranormal mechanism will eventually be worked out, so winning the challenge would get you a very long way towards your goal of having dowsing recognised as natural, but if you want to take the challenge you will have to accept that, for the time being at least, it fits JREF's definition of paranormal even if you yourself do not consider it such.

Of course there's nothing to stop you doing a JREF-type test in front of witnesses, even if you're not actually doing so as an official challenge.

I want to prove or disprove dowsing beyond a doubt. Help me do so

The key is to demonstrate dowsing works with a greater success rate that would be expected by chance. The difficulty with most demonstations of dowsing is that they take place in circumstances where the chance success rate is impossible to determine, so success proves nothing. That's why the JREF test takes place in controlled conditions where the chance success rate can be calculated - then success criteria that's significantly higher than chance can be set in advance, and all the dowser has to do is meet them.

You say you have designed an experiment - does it allow you to do this, i.e. can you work out in advance what the chance success rate is? If you post it, I and others here will be happy to help you tweak it until it would be an acceptable protocol for a JREF test. Then you can try it, and see if dowsing does indeed work.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Of course there's nothing to stop you doing a JREF-type test in front of witnesses, even if you're not actually doing so as an official challenge.

Also nothing wrong with taking the MDC with a prior agreement that you will abstain from the million dollars if you win, so that the challenge can persist despite your victory.

 

[Marcus]

Welcome, vman. I think you will find that the people here are quite receptive to anyone who is interested in a fair test. It is only the ones who have no interest in backing up their claims who don't like their reception.

By all means, tell us the details about your proposed test, you will get plenty of suggestions.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Bob believes his claim and I have seen results that support his belief. Mine is quite a bit less agressive, but I am willing to put up (see my post). My position is a little different in that I will submit to the million dollar criteria, as long as my claim is seen as not being supernatural and therefore, NOT qualifed for the money.

Your disbelief is understandable and I can not yet prove that you (and maybe we) are wrong about it. Help me design the experiment and let old boy alone. Your words :"put up or shut up". Please, take this in the most positive way possible.

I want to prove or disprove dowsing beyond a doubt. Help me do so

Hi Bob,

How about details of what you've done to prove to yourself that dowsing works? Tell us what protocol you have already used.

 

[Pixel42]

I want to prove or disprove dowsing beyond a doubt. Help me do so

Bump.

Still sitting here poised over my keyboard, waiting to help

 

[Old Bob]

Bump.

Still sitting here poised over my keyboard, waiting to help

Came back for a look, and surprise. Some one believes a little, it is hopeless to try and explain to the non believers so if you wish to swap methods contact me on [email protected] Robo, when you say what protocol is used ? I don't fully understand your question, or how I could answer. Cheers Old Bob

 

[Pixel42]

Robo, when you say what protocol is used ? I don't fully understand your question, or how I could answer.

He's asking how you established to your satisfaction that dowsing works better than chance. To do that you need to be able to calculate the chance rate of success, and then see if your success rate is significantly better than that.

The problem with most examples of supposedly successful dowsing is that they don't allow the chance success rate to be determined. For example, suppose someone dowses an area of one square mile, identifies a spot where they think water is, bores a hole and - sure enough - there's water there. Is that evidence that dowsing works? If that's the only place in that square mile where water would be found, sure. If the water table is such that you could have bored a hole anywhere in that square mile and hit water, not so much. If you think the former is the case but actually the latter is, you could easily fool yourself into thinking dowsing "works" when your success rate is actually no better than chance.

That's why any attempt to determine whether dowsing really works must be done under controlled conditions, so the chance success rate can be calculated and compared to the actual success rate. For example:

1. Bury a dozen containers in a field, fill half with water and half with sand,

2. Have one of each open so that the dowser can check his ability is working, i.e. that his dowsing stick/pendulum reacts to the container of water but not to the container of sand.

3. The dowser then dowses the other ten closed containers and determines which contain water and which sand.

It's trivial to calculate how many would be expected to be found by chance, so a hit rate significantly higher than that can be set as the success criteria before the test is run. Such a test has been run dozens of times; not even the most experienced dowser has ever been able to identify the water containers any more often than would be expected by chance.

Unless you can say you have tried such a test and passed it, your claim to be a successful dowser will not be taken seriously here.

 

[Old Bob]

Ok here we go again. Australia not sitting on a lake and in a number of cases people have ignored where I have said, and drilled on a more convenient site and got a dry hole. Drillers don't care as they get payed by the depth. As for a test of buried cans that would be difficulty as one would not only have to think of the can but also what was in it. What would be wrong with finding say water mains and have a operator with meter checking? My wife and myself sunk a bore by hand and got beautiful primery water at 45 ft. (Inside a shed so too hard to get drillers) and across the road a bore in the wrong spot gets nothing. So please don't tell me one could drill any where and get water. As for surface terain,it has no relation to where the porous seams are underground that carry water. People who have had less schooling like me seem to be able to adapt to dowsing easier. Just love my dream world, having fun map dowsing at the moment.

 

[lionking]

Wonder if I'm older than Old Bob?

He's a decade older than you and me, and a thousand years behind.

 

[Pixel42]

Ok here we go again. Australia not sitting on a lake and in a number of cases people have ignored where I have said, and drilled on a more convenient site and got a dry hole.

I'm sorry, but unless you can calculate the probability of finding water by chance and then show that dowsing consistently produces results better than that all you have is anecdotes. Anecdotal data can justify doing more methodical testing such as the kind I described, but on its own it proves nothing. Not only is it prone to confirmation bias but in the case of dowsing there are all sorts of clues in the landscape that can influence the dowser, consciously or unconsciously.

As for a test of buried cans that would be difficulty as one would not only have to think of the can but also what was in it.

Are you saying the substance of the container could affect your ability to find the water within it, even though the rock the water is usually contained in does not? I must say I find that hard to believe. In any case you can make the container out of anything you like, including wood and even rock. ETA: Or the 'blanks' could have no container (just dig a hole and fill it in again so it looks the same) so all you have to do is distinguish the places which have a container full of water under them from the ones which have nothing.

What would be wrong with finding say water mains and have a operator with meter checking?

Again, how would calculate the chances of finding the water main by chance, to compare your success with dowsing against? Also I doubt water mains are laid at random across the landscape, I imagine those who lay them favour certain types of ground, which would (again consciously or unconsciously) give you clues that might improve your success rate over that expected by chance.

My wife and myself sunk a bore by hand and got beautiful primery water at 45 ft. (Inside a shed so too hard to get drillers) and across the road a bore in the wrong spot gets nothing. So please don't tell me one could drill any where and get water.

I'm not telling you that, I'm saying in some terrains your chances of hitting water are much greater than in others. Unless you know exactly what your chances are of hitting water by luck, and can consistently dowse at a more successful rate than that chance success rate, you cannot conclude that dowsing works.

 

[Lanzy]

He's a decade older than you and me, and a thousand years behind.

I will never get old enough to use the word old to describe myself.

 

[Mashuna]

I will never get old enough to use the word old to describe myself.

That's what all old people say.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo, when you say what protocol is used ? I don't fully understand your question, or how I could answer. Cheers Old Bob

Pixel42 answered this quite nicely. Until you've done this, your anecdotes don't mean much. As has been noted, if you are really that confident in dowsing and your ability, you would take the MDC and use the million for charitable purposes.

If you subconsciously know that dowsing is a prime example of the ideomotor effect, you won't. That simple.

 

[shuttlt]

If you subconsciously know that dowsing is a prime example of the ideomotor effect, you won't. That simple.

Ooooo.... I know a really neat way to confirm this. Write "Yes" and "No" on two cards and place them in front of you. Fetch a weighted string and hold it in front of you so that one answer is above, and one answer to the left of the string. Ask the string whether "you subconsciously know that dowsing is a prime example of the ideomotor effect". The weighted string will magically settle into a steady swing towards the correct answer.

 

[Lanzy]

That's what all old people say.

Or in my case, clearly deluded.

 

[steve s]

Australia not sitting on a lake

No, it's just sitting on the world's single largest aquifer, the Great Artesian Basin, covering 1.7 million square kilometers. (Not to mention the other aquifers in Australia.)



Steve S,

 

[Old Bob]

No, it's just sitting on the world's single largest aquifer, the Great Artesian Basin, covering 1.7 million square kilometers. (Not to mention the other aquifers in Australia.)

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_81544a8f83910c21e.gif[/qimg]

Steve S,

You have missed your calling, with distorted maps like above. We are (were) talking about under ground water in reach of mobile rigs not deep artesian that requires oilrig drilling and it is depeleted somewhat.Also it is no longer peimissable to drill on artesian unless you have a letter from God. Most private bores are no deeper than 200 meters after that it just costs too much. Theory is that our deep water comes from New Guinea and is ofen very mineral. If you think the shaded areas are just brimming over how come we are the driest land mass in the world? I think that is cloud shadow on the map above. Also the largest aquifer in the world is in South America and G.W.Bush owns it. The streams that I have tracked are often no deeper than 100 meters.

 

[scarlettinlondon]

Old Bob, I have some doubt that you really believe that you can do this under test conditions. I think that you probably believe that you can do it in the open air with a good degree of success but that you are not really sure how it works.

Otherwise I can see no rational explanation as to why you post here with your pro dowsing views but refuse to test them. I think that you probably know that they won't work under test conditions, but that they appear to do so in the natural environment.

I believe that you are probably an intelligent person, so if you can start to think about why this should happen, I mean, why it appears to work in the field, but not under test conditions, you will be tackling the crux of the matter. After all, those dowsers who have previously failed tests, held exactly the same strong beliefs that you do.

It does not become an intelligent person to say 'I have no need of the million and therefore I won't test my skills formally'. It is not a rational argument when there are many people who could benefit from financial assistance around the world, so please do not let yourself down by using it as a reason. Just apply your intelligence and thinking as to why dowsing appears to work in the field for you, but you are reluctant to test it formally.

Best Wishes Scarlett