Green Building Forum - Dowsing

Dowsing

fostertom — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:30:32 +0100

This is an answer to stephendv's question on http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2382&page=2#Item_1 but in a fresh Topic cos it's straying from that Topic's subject.

Posted By: stephendv
Posted By: fostertom
BTW, how do we explain this in http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2390&page=1#Item_19?:
Posted By: mrswhitecatWater was found with a very low tech meeting of hazel twigs

Funny, I was just having this debate with someone else over the weekend, since we're about to start drilling our well today (which was found using sticks and a pendulum). I think an interesting question is to forget the science or pseudo science of _how_ it could work, and just look at the cold an impartial economics of it, e.g.: Do gold/diamond mines use this technique to find ore? Companies are purely profit driven, they don't care about dogma, scientific fact or not, they just want to make a buck. And if they could reliably spend a few hundred dollars using divining to find ore instead of spending thousands on geologic studies, they would. The fact that no commercial application for divining exists (apart from finding wells for small holdings) speaks volumes for its efficacy.

In answer, I'm laying a paper trail - if interested , look at my first ever post on http://britishdowsers.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1124&sid=364fe706136fb8701b35374a8300381e , and also follow the links within the answer I've received over there - and let me know what you think!

Dowsing

Martian — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:06:03 +0100

There is a million dollar prize available to these "dowsers" or "diviners" if they can proove their "powers" under scintifically controlled conditions,
You may have herad of James Randi, one of my heros as a great debunker of all sorts of scams, nonsense, "woo woo" theories and "New Age" BS in general:
http://www.randi.org/library/dowsing/

Dowsing

fostertom — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:51:15 +0100

Martian, Wandi is a Ranker. Hero!

Dowsing

Martian — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:17:08 +0100

Wandi is the gweatest

Dowsing

Paul in Montreal — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:23:47 +0100

Posted By: fostertomMartian, Wandi is a Ranker. Hero!

At least he puts his money where his mouth is: the $1000000 prize has been up for grabs for years and no-one has come close to claiming it. Of course, as a top-class magician, Randi is able to do any of the fun stuff that people like Uri Geller made a living at: bending spoons and keys and such like. I'm sure he can do levitation too - always impressive to see a live show with a lit cigarette floating up to the magician's mouth through various hoops. A friend of mine was taken in by such a trick at some kind of new-age retreat. He was pretty depressed when I pointed out this is a classic trick.

So, to cut a long story short, Randi does have heroic credentials if he helps prevent fools from being separated from their money.

Paul in Montreal.

Dowsing

Martian — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:35:18 +0100

See this quote from his dowsing article and compare with Tom's experience:
<<
The Ideomotor Effect
We are witnessing here a very powerful psychological phenomenon known as the "ideomotor effect." This is defined as, "an involuntary body movement evoked by an idea or thought process rather than by sensory stimulation." The dowser is unknowingly moving the device of choice, exerting a small shaking, tilt or pressure to it, enough to disturb its state of balance. This has been shown any number of times to be true, but the demonstration has meant nothing to the dowsers, who will persist in their delusion no matter how many times it is shown to them that dowsing does not work. The defensive reaction of most dowsers, following their failure, is to claim that they should not have submitted to any test, and will never do so again. And most will say that dowsing comes under special rules that deny that it can be tested, ever. The discouraging fact is that no dowser is ever convinced, as a result of proper double-blind testing, that they cannot dowse. Their need to believe is so strong and so ingrained, that they will refuse to accept any quality and/or quantity of good evidence. They have adopted a philosophy that shields them against reality. >>

Dowsing

marktime — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:48:58 +0100

"They have adopted a philosophy that shields them against reality." Probably use multifoils to help 'em do it.

Dowsing

Martian — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:51:28 +0100

Poor gullible architect Tom
Cheered as each daft new scheme came along,
He put crap insulation,
In the roofs of our nation,
And wouldnâ€™t admit he was wrong!

Dowsing

fostertom — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:19:44 +0100

See this [edited] quote from Martian and compare with his stance against Scientific heresy:

Posted By: MartianTheir need to believe [in the safe immutability of Scientific principles and procedures] is so strong and so ingrained, that they will refuse to accept any quality and/or quantity of good evidence. They have adopted a philosophy that shields them against reality.

And why not? - even Scientists and ex-Building Inspectors are human - even do a bit of poetry

"good" evidence is it. If 'good' means present standards of rigorous experimental procedure, then I'm tellin' ya, that (apart from vested interest and petty ego) those standards are the very way that timid conservative science preserves itself safe from whole realms of phenomena. Even having had quantum weirdness, chaos etc forced upon it, the scientific mentality still yearns for the long-gone simplicities of Newtonian cause-and-effect. Anything uncontrolled is still ruled 'unscientific' and simply ignored. Present standards of rigorous experimental procedure aim (but often fail) to eliminate human error and bias, but thereby also eliminate the other side of that coin - intuition and other subtle responses. Even scientists, being human. live their everyday lives immersed in such phenomena, would die without them - but may pretend to be immune, or at least eliminate any scientific curiosity about such things. Why? It's so unscientific, such a systematic lie, to leave so much uninvestigated except with the pre-intention to disprove, with all the enthusiasm previously reserved to heretic-hunters, today cloaked in pious Mary Whitehouse-type service to "prevent fools from being separated from their money".

Present standards of rigorous experimental procedure are custom-designed to disable the very means by which so-called (so far) subtle phenomena like dowsing actually work. Those parts of science that do have an interest in this wide and potent realm are having to find new experimental methods that don't simply gratify the quackbusting urge.

Perhaps I don't say enough, how much I appreciate the generosity and clarity with which many on this forum, including Paul in Montreal and Martian, share their expertise and experience - and are always up for a bit of controversy. This forum is a brilliant University of the Air. What I can't stomach is the unbending need to nip in the bud whatever they regard as quackery, often with virulence of language that nothing else provokes. Why? Who is it that so needs protecting from heresy, con or ... what? Why is it out of the question to state your reservations, by all means, but to just allow a bit of 'what if there were some truth in this ... what then?'. Creativity, including scientific creativity, proceeds in surprising ways, and you might find such un-pre-conditioned speculation throwing fresh light on areas that you regard as 'good' science.

That's a challenge - do you decline it?

Dowsing

Cliff Pope — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:27:22 +0100

"No experiment should be believed until it has been confirmed by theory"
(Sir Arthur Eddington)

What is the theory behind dowsing?

Dowsing

Tuna — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:08:32 +0100

Tom,

I admire the strength with which you defend your beliefs.

However, the urge to justify a complete abandonment of critical thinking when it comes to 'alternative' phenomena seems somewhat misguided to me. The rejection of scientific method prevents anyone managing to quantify whether something like dowsing has any practical benefit. Dowsers themselves actively resist clear minded consideration of whether their results are any better than either pure blind luck, or basic human intuition. You asked them if any companies employ dowsers, and you get an evidence free response. What does that tell you?

Humans are hard wired to spot patterns in nature, even when there are none. Depending on our mind set, one good experience can be more memorable than ten bad ones, or equally one bad experience can outweigh ten good ones. These qualities allow us to invent phenomena and explanations, and find evidence for them when there is no such thing in the real world. Equally, these qualities have allowed the human race to develop language, arts, technology and a massive range of understanding of our universe. Scientific method and critical thinking allow us to distinguish one from the other.

You accuse scientists of timid, conservative thinking as a way to defend uncritical acceptance of unsubstantiated claims. Scientists have timidly and conservatively discovered particles of matter that are so small it takes equipment 20 miles long to spot single fleeting instances. They've conceieved (and proven) beams of energy that travel at a speed completely independent of the speed that you're travelling - exactly counter to any human experience prior to that. They've demonstrated matter that can slow light to a crawl, and particles that can cause completely disconnected particles thousands of miles away to change state spontaneously at the flick of a switch. Scientists love odd and unexpected results - those moments when someone says "that's strange" can open whole new avenues of thought and understanding, from DNA to radioactivity, from gravity to the passage of time. No scientist is closed to the unexpected. They are deeply distrustful of the unverified or unsubstantiated.

That distrust can be quite vociferous, but that's often because alternative phenomena are often used to sell snake-oil and influence uncritical individuals. Whilst some unexplained phenomena are truly worth investigating, many others come up time and time again as a convenient disguise for wooly minded thinking or outright deceipt. As an architect, you would get pretty irate if client after client tried to tell you that u-values are irrelevant if you have a powerful enough MHRV unit for instance. You know that the principles that you use to develop a building are well established by centuries of experiment and refinement. Of course that understanding can be extended, but do you genuinely believe that years of experience can be completely invalidated by a new discovery? Can you cite a single case of a discovery making previous measured results no longer correct? That is what many practitioners of alternative science are asking for - not just an extension of existing principles, but a complete abandonment of well established and tested explanations for the things we see in the world around us.

I think you misunderstand or mischaracterise the scientific process. Being critical of a theory is not the same as refusing to accept new phenomena.

Personally, I'm an engineer, not a scientist. As long as the real world results are near enough what's needed, the formula is good enough for me! :D

Dowsing

fostertom — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:38:18 +0100

Thank you Tuna - I feel fully engaged-with, and you've covered lots of important ground, with great clarity. I will reply.

Dowsing

Dominic Cooney — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:45:59 +0100

What's the problem with dowsing? I dowsed the exact position of the water main for a new connection for the water board last year, and the small water pipe that I was replacing, tracing it all along the building and up the side to the neighbours cattle trough. You can also dowse drains, and I think there might be a well too in one spot (rods spread apart rather than crossed over)
or is it just dowsing things other than water that is the problem?

Dowsing

funcrusher — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:57:39 +0100

Martian: welcome back from your old adversary- not seen you active for a long time.

Dowsing

llwynbedw — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:47:54 +0100

Posted By: Cliff Pope"No experiment should be believed until it has been confirmed by theory"
(Sir Arthur Eddington)
What is the theory behind dowsing?

What happens if the theory that would support dowsing exists outside the canon of current theory? Popper and Kuhn have shown pretty convincingly that scientists do not simply accept newer, better evidence as it comes along but tend to reject that which contradicts existing theory.

An example: for many people acupuncture works. Having lived in the far east for many years I have heard too much convincing anecdotal evidence to believe that this is just the panacea effect (there is some research to support the usefulness of acupuncture). Yet for centuries (and maybe even now) we did not have a consistent theory to explain this efficacy that was congruent with existing theories of how the body works. Thus acupuncture has traditionally been rejected as mumbo jumbo. In theory, it doesn't work. In practise, for many, it does. In such cases the wise man goes with what works, rather than what he thinks should work.

I am not arguing for dowsing, simply pointing out that being unable to integrate an idea or phenomenon into our current set of theories does not mean that said idea is automatically invalid. It may mean that we have to throw away some of the existing canon. Copernicus and all that.

Dan

Dowsing

stephendv — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 08:26:08 +0100

Posted By: Dominic CooneyWhat's the problem with dowsing? I dowsed the exact position of the water main for a new connection for the water board last year, and the small water pipe that I was replacing, tracing it all along the building and up the side to the neighbours cattle trough. You can also dowse drains, and I think there might be a well too in one spot (rods spread apart rather than crossed over)
or is it just dowsing things other than water that is the problem?

Dominic, I'm unconvinced by both water dowsing and dowsing for arbitrary real objects - despite a dowser having just found and dug our well on Thursday :) I agree with Dan above, the explanation is not as important as the practical applications - and also the current market around dowsing. If it is reliable and reproducible (and a number of real studies have shown that it isn't, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#Munich) , then where are the dowsing courses at universities? where are the independently sanctioned certification courses (certifications by dowsing bodies themselves, don't count)? Why wouldn't the dowser who found my well guarantee his finding before starting to drill? Dowsing has been around for centuries - why is it still cloaked in so much mystery?

Tom provided an example of Southern Water in the UK training technicians to dowse (granted quite interesting that a large organisation bought into this) - but is this the only example in the whole of the UK of a commercial application?

Dowsing

Dominic Cooney — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 08:50:49 +0100

Funny you should say that, it was the man from Severn Trent Water that got his dowsing rods out of the back of his van to find the mains. (he had no luck with the electronic pipe locator because there was nowhere to access it and attach a clip to send the signal)
I was so impressed, he showed me how to do it, and it worked for me too.
I told the father-in-law, who said he has known how to do it for years, so we subsequently dowsed the whole site and located all the water pipes, possible drains, and as I said a possible well in one place (there was an unexplained large curve around it in the drystone wall)
I would not be able to say that something is definitely a water pipe, drain, or well at this stage - just that there is something down there. Most of the clues are above ground i.e. cattle trough at one end, tap at the other, dowse the route of the supply pipe in between. It is surprisingly accurate in terms of location - but i wouldn't know exactly what was there until I dug down!

Dowsing

marktime — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 09:53:06 +0100

Here's a timely argument, not that it will convince you, your mind will tell you otherwise.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/aug/23/health

Dowsing

fostertom — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:06:31 +0100

marktime, would you say that your mind, unlike others', tells you only 'true' things?

Dowsing

marktime — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:13:29 +0100

No, Tom. That is exactly the point. When I trust my "mind" over facts then I become a victim of all sorts of nonsense such as psychics, religion, homeopathy, multifoils and alien abductions. When you exert yourself to the edge of your physical abilities, say in running a marathon, it isn't your legs that let you down, it's your mind. That's what you have to beat so as not to give in.

And when I say facts, you know I mean, observable, measurable, repeatable where possible and independant of the observer.

We can stand in awe listening to the whispered echoes of the big bang coming to us from the edge of our universe, we can see beauty in the spiral dance of binary galaxies, we can measure how genetically close we are to our great ape cousins, we can harness the most powerful energy known to us, the binding energy of the nucleus and we do all that through the power of our rational thought. Let's be open to new discoveries but at the same time, bring our knowledge and experience to bear down on them so that through our sceptisism, we do not become deluded by what we want to be "true".

I too, have "dowsed" with a pair of steel knitting needles. Do I think I possess some uncanny power? No, of course not. The needles moved over all sorts of things, including my pet moggie when I could get get her to keep still.

Dowsing

krishna — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 00:27:49 +0100

In India in the early 1970s, Firestone, the American tyre company employed dowsers to find underground water supplies during a drought. They were then able to successfully sink bore wells.

Dowsing

Cliff Pope — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:03:41 +0100

What happens if the theory that would support dowsing exists outside the canon of current theory?

Dan

That's Ok. But it makes dowsing a belief, not a science. Lots of religions, cures, remedies, petrol economisers, aphrodisiacs, routes to happiness, rain forecasting, etc etc work because people believe they work or they want them to work.

There will be water there somewhere, if you dig a hole at random there is a better chance than not of hitting it at some point.
You want the dowsing to work, you are paying for it, the dowser says it works, therefore it probably will work.

Dowsing

ludite — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:33:03 +0100

There are many mysteries in this world, dowsing is one of them - so are astrological sun signs, tarot cards, feng shui, and spiritualists.

Dowsing

ludite — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:34:00 +0100

Looks as if the longest post I can do is one line long for some reason. Add the mysteries of bl***y internet to the mix.

Dowsing

fostertom — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:59:22 +0100

Posted By: Cliff PopeLots of ... (you name it) ... work because people believe they work or they want them to work.
You want the (whatever) to work, you are paying for it, the (energiser) says it works, therefore it probably will work

Thanks Cliff Pope - you've perfectly described a well-known phenomenon, so natural and commonly-used that life would be difficult if not impossible without it. Everyone, even cynics know this phenomenon - but why doesn't it arouse scientific curiosity? 'You believe it, therefore it is' - blimey, is that powerful, or what? If only science could uncover what's actually happening here, just think of the unscratched potential.

It is actually mad to describe something that happens and then dismiss it as only 'belief', in some way not real, a delusion (even though it happens); certainly not science. This is a science that has disappeared up its own jobsworth back passage, so far has it come from cool observance and making-sense of 'what is'.

Dowsing

fostertom — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:03:59 +0100

Posted By: marktimeWhen I trust my "mind" over facts .... That is exactly the point

marktime, if the mind is so unreliable, which part of you is it, that's so sure that your mind (unlike others') is servant to 'the facts' as you (which part of you?) see it?

Dowsing

fostertom — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:33:31 +0100

Posted By: Dominic CooneyWhat's the problem with dowsing? ... or is it just dowsing things other than water that is the problem?

No it's dowsing as a symbol or representative of all the unexplained things that make some people so nervous. If your grip on sanity depends on sharing a reassuring, stable worldview with your choice of likeminded subgroup e.g. orthodox scientific method as 'the truth', then dowsing, homeopathy, intuition, kinesiology, Bristol Cancer Centre and suchlike all have to be vigilantly defended against.

Dowsing

Tuna — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:01:38 +0100

Not at all Tom - no defense needed. I'm not threatened by something unexplained. I am however, curious to understand how a phenomena which appears to be so elusive is believed to be anything other than chance influenced by a small amount of human intuition.

Witness the descriptions here of 'successful' dowsing - someone managed to 'find' the pipe between a water trough and a tap. Surely the fact that you already know there has to be a pipe there, and you're holding the dowsing rods might be connected to the mysterious ability to find the thing?!

I have no problem with unexplained phenomena, but for something to be an 'unexplained phenomena' it has to be a phenomena first - an event that is:

(a) better than normal statistical noise
(b) independent of human influence (even if that influence is subconcious, as in the case of dowsing)
(c) in some way repeatable

Lumping in human intuition and homeopathy in as unexplained does the human mind a great disservice. Intuition is our ability at a very basic and often largely subconcious level to spot patterns in our surroundings and build up our expectations based on those patterns. When we're right, we remember it, when we're wrong we forget it as just being unlucky. Homeopathy is fairly well understood and has some scientific basis in medical circles. Starting with the placebo effect, it's a simple fact that people respond medically when they are given more attention and support than otherwise. The human body is a complex machine and to think that it runs independently of it's main control centre (the brain) is obviously foolish. However, ascribing magical powers to the brain because it can see patterns and encourage healing is not being very rational.

Dowsing

Dominic Cooney — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:32:09 +0100

That was the idea, to find the pipe. I knew there was one, I wanted to know where it lay, in a possible cross section of 12 metres I wanted to avoid digging a trench through it.
As for the water main, the two navvies from the water board weren't going to dig down 4 feet by hand to 'see if the main was there' they wanted to know exactly where it was first. There may be some kind of human influence on the action of the rods, but it doesn't mean it doesn't work. Perhaps the human is the vector for the signal/energy or something to do with magnetism? from the flow of water - a bit like these devices that reduce your fuel consumption in your car, or help people's blood flow improve (I have heard of magnet treatment for circulation).

Dowsing

fostertom — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:15:58 +0100

Posted By: TunaI think you misunderstand or mischaracterise the scientific process

I return you the compliment, tuna.

Posted By: Tunathe urge to justify a complete abandonment of critical thinking when it comes to 'alternative' phenomena

No way - I want science to get on the job. But the particular form or elaborated methodology that science has settled into, is the problem.

Posted By: TunaThe rejection of scientific method prevents anyone managing to quantify whether .....

Of course scientific method can be modified. It's absurd to say that there is not, and never will be, any alternative methodology to double-blind whatsit (whatever); that no other way is trustworthy.

Posted By: TunaScientific method and critical thinking allow us to distinguish one from the other

Totally agree. Refusal to re-think achieves the opposite.

In my long post, above, that you answered to, tuna, you showed no acknowledgement, even by specific dispute, of the main point:

'Present standards of rigorous experimental procedure are custom-designed to disable the very means by which so-called (so far) subtle phenomena like dowsing actually work. Those parts of science that do have an interest in this wide and potent realm are having to find new experimental methods'.

I don't see how you can take that as "the urge to justify a complete abandonment of critical thinking when it comes to 'alternative' phenomena".

The only reason we're debating this here is that I personally don't see these 'alternative phenomena' as separate from science. I'm just as turned-off by that new-agey spooky/spiritual vibe, as I am by self-blinkered scientists. As a lifelong rationalist, architecture-as-engineering, I live by science and technology. Why should there be any conflict or separation between that, and the further, age-old but scientifically unexplored realms of human technique and action, that I'm now meeting? The genius of this age is to rescue stuff that's been buried for millennia in mystery, ritual, arduous discipline and power-tripping; and make it quick, easy, accessible to everyone, ordinary but potent. There's plenty of scientists and engineers who know likewise - and the ones who don't.

http://www.pms.ac.uk/compmed/ is Exeter University's quackbusting Department of Complementary Medicine, whose Prof Edzard Ernst is regarded as devil incarnate by many complementary therapists. Yet I hear from a respected Schumacher College source that the Prof gets much trust and cooperation from the complementaries. It's almost like he's showing that if this is the consistent finding of rigorous scientific method as applied by staff of missionary zeal, then a) there's something wrong with scientific method, and b) it's amazing what a bit of Intentionality will do.