France: new double-blind experiment about dowsing

[nikoteen]

Hello all,

The "Observatoire Zététique", a non-profit organization made up of french skeptics, just released the english version of their new publication about dowsing. It took nearly 6 months, from initial contact to final protocol, for this experiment to reach fruition. This randomized, double-blind controlled protocol was implemented in Argenton on Saturday, March 17-18 2007.

The translation from french to english was made possible by the valuable contribution of Véronique Marchand, a kind member of the JREF forum, where we asked for help.

Check our web site (see my signature) for details.

Claus Larsen, who's also a regular of the JREF forum, will propose an HTML version on the Skeptic Report soon.

An example of international team work!

Back in 2004, the Observatoire Zetetique had already published an experimental report about Therapeutic Touch which Randi had mentioned in several papers at the time.

Zetetically yours,
---
Nicolas Vivant

 

[catbasket]

Thanks Nicolas, I'm reading it now.

Direct link to the pdf - http://www.observatoire-zetetique.org/divers/dowsing-2007.pdf

 

[nikoteen]

Thanks to you. I cannot post any URL since I still don't have these 15 damned posts I need to do so

-- Nicolas.

 

[malbui]

Good stuff. Having read the report, I've just been to have a look at the CASAR site... Hmmm.

 

[Khyron]

Congratulations! Can I have permission to use this protocol as a basis for other extrasensory perception claims? (I.E. different sensing/detecting apparatus, but otherwise identical protocol?)

Also, a question on the protocol - why is the envelope given to the dowser, before beginning, which states which boxes the sample will be placed in? Could this instead be secured somewhere where they do not have access to it, but still have assurance that it was not tampered with after being prepared? I note that other points in the protocol call for a safe to be used where both teams are needed to open it; this would seem to be an ideal solution for that purpose.

 

[nikoteen]

Congratulations! Can I have permission to use this protocol as a basis for other extrasensory perception claims? (I.E. different sensing/detecting apparatus, but otherwise identical protocol?)

Of course you can. We published all details so that it can be re-used by whoever would find it interesting.

Also, a question on the protocol - why is the envelope given to the dowser, before beginning, which states which boxes the sample will be placed in? Could this instead be secured somewhere where they do not have access to it, but still have assurance that it was not tampered with after being prepared? I note that other points in the protocol call for a safe to be used where both teams are needed to open it; this would seem to be an ideal solution for that purpose.

It's definitely secured while it's in the dowser's pocket: he's under permanent supervision during the serie. We first planned to use a safe, but it was far more difficult for both teams to have it supervised during the whole experiment. Having the results in his pocket, the dowser is also confident that data are not being altered.

Best regards,
-- nikoteen.

 

[Jackalgirl]

Outstanding stuff! I really enjoyed reading your test and will definitely hold it in my bookmarks as a great example of how to do this sort of thing. Congratulations!

 

[nikoteen]

Thanks a lot for your comments! It's a real pleasure to share the result of our work (and it was a lot of work, believe me) with you all!

Best regards,
-- nikoteen.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Yes, now this is responsible actual skeptical inquiry, rather than poking fun at people, trying to pressure them, focusing on media appearances.

Great job!!

 

[Jackalgirl]

Thanks a lot for your comments! It's a real pleasure to share the result of our work (and it was a lot of work, believe me) with you all!

Best regards,
-- nikoteen.

Just please make sure that you keep this stuff comin'. We want to see more! : )

 

[Macoy]

yes, but what does Edge say?

 

[Jackalgirl]

yes, but what does Edge say?

If I'm understanding the whole twisted, sordid story, my guess is that he would say that the dowsers failed this test because the target items were insufficiently "grounded" (i.e., touching actual ground, rather than, say, a floor). His new test protocol calls for the targets to be touching the ground (although I'm not longer sure that's the case...the discussion has meandered so much that I might simply be misremembering things).

Far be it for me to put words in edge's mouth, though -- so please bear in mind that this is only my interpretation based on his Challenge thread.

 

[Macoy]

If I'm understanding the whole twisted, sordid story, my guess is that he would say that the dowsers failed this test because the target items were insufficiently "grounded" (i.e., touching actual ground, rather than, say, a floor). His new test protocol calls for the targets to be touching the ground (although I'm not longer sure that's the case...the discussion has meandered so much that I might simply be misremembering things).

Far be it for me to put words in edge's mouth, though -- so please bear in mind that this is only my interpretation based on his Challenge thread.

Thank you, J.

 

[blutoski]

It's definitely secured while it's in the dowser's pocket: he's under permanent supervision during the serie. We first planned to use a safe, but it was far more difficult for both teams to have it supervised during the whole experiment. Having the results in his pocket, the dowser is also confident that data are not being altered.

Isn't there a risk of the dowser substituting the 'results' with a prepared set?

 

[nikoteen]

Hello blotoski,

Isn't there a risk of the dowser substituting the 'results' with a prepared set?

Not so easily. Our protocol says:

The team responsible for the interruption places all the documents in a large sealed envelope labeled with the number of the series (Series 1, Series 2) and alerts the other team by repeating the sound signal 3 times.

- This is performed by both assessors (one from the "skeptic" team and one from the "dowser" team) of the realization team. They first check that the data they are about to seal are valid.

- Note that each of the 3 members of the "dowsing" team permanently supervise the others during the serie.

- Note also that each of those documents are signed by the 2 people from the "preparing team" : the skeptic representative signs his owned copy of the random draw, the dowser representative does the same with his copy and both of them sign the copy which is provided afterwards to the dowser.

The other team places all of the documents they are holding in a large sealed envelope labeled with the number of the series.

The whole team go to the main room and the envelope is placed into the safe. Still, none of the participants are left alone.

Both large sealed envelopes are stored in a safe under lock and key. The safe is entrusted to the preparation team and its only key is entrusted to the realisation team. If an OZ representative is holding the safe, the dowsing team must hold the key, and vice-versa.

In fact what we decided is that the "skeptic" team would keep the safe and the "dowsing" team would have the key.

It's difficult to be more rigorous in the way data are managed and stored. Look for such details in Sheldrake protocols, for instance Of course it's never perfect and Randi would probably find a way to cheat. We just did our best. By the way, if better ways to deal with the data are proposed, I would be more than happy to implement them for our next experiment.

Best regards,
-- Nicolas Vivant.