General: Dowsing

31 to 60 of 111

- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeAug 27th 2008 edited
Posted By: TunaWitness 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?!
That's the convinced voice of someone who's never tried it. Dominic has, and I recognise the flavour of what he's describing. Tuna, it would be so easy to acquire some authority, which you clearly lack - try it.

Posted By: Tunachance influenced by a small amount of human intuition
That's right - intuition has influence.
Posted By: Tunaindependent of human influence (even if that influence is subconcious, as in the case of dowsing)
The point is, dowsing is totally dependent on and demonstrates a tiny fragment of the potential of human influence. Let science move it from the murky unconscious, to the conscious.

You're so locked into treating subtle/human influence on events, as just experimental error, that you can't grasp the point:
a) this acknowledged power of subtle/human influence on events is the very thing that should be scientifically investigated, understood and utilised;
b) conventional scientific method is custom-designed to disable these processes, so the typical proofs e.g. showing insignificant deviation from random, are systematically false.
- CommentAuthorjoe.e
- CommentTimeAug 27th 2008 edited
Fostertom,

Posted By: fostertomconventional scientific method is custom-designed to disable these processes, so the typical proofs e.g. showing insignificant deviation from random, are systematically false.

I'm interested by this idea. How could an enquiring mind get around it? How could the effectiveness of dowsing be objectively demonstrated? Have you ever designed and run any experiments for yourself to test the dowsing process? Something in which there is a right and a wrong outcome, and some way of estimating how often the right outcome would be obtained by chance? Or is that idea in itself an example of the disabling scientific method?
I don't want to debunk; what I'm interested in is whether there is any way to investigate dowsing without damaging its apparently fragile process.
- CommentAuthorCliff Pope
- CommentTimeAug 27th 2008
I don't see there is a problem here. The two possible explanations ("scientific" and "belief", or "self-suggestion" or whatever) can work happily in parallel . Those who believe it can use it, and if it works for them, good luck. Those who debunk it pending a conventional scientific explanation can use some other method, although nothing debars them from having a go. (I think spending a pound on the lottery is statistically pointless, but I have once given it a try just to prove my point!)

I don't see why if there is some rational explanation, at present beyond our ken, it should be so fragile as to collapse in the presence of a non-believer as soon as he gets his galvanometer out.
- CommentAuthorTuna
- CommentTimeAug 27th 2008
Posted By: fostertomThe point is, dowsing is totally dependent on and demonstrates a tiny fragment of the potential of human influence. Let science move it from the murky unconscious, to the conscious.

You're so locked into treating subtle/human influence on events, as just experimental error, that you can't grasp the point:
a) this acknowledged power of subtle/human influence on events is the very thing that should be scientifically investigated, understood and utilised;
b) conventional scientific method is custom-designed to disable these processes, so the typical proofs e.g. showing insignificant deviation from random, are systematically false.

No, sorry, I don't think I explained myself very well. I absolutely believe that human influence is significant - it plays a part in both dowsing and homeopathy that I am happy to acknowledge. Research into medical treatment has shown in a completely scientific and rigourous manner that mental state affects the body's ability to heal and recover. I don't have problems with either of those things and can quite happily accept them.

What I do have a problem with, is ascribing those affects to anything other than the normal, mechanical functioning of the human body and mind. I don't believe we have any connection with our surrounding environment other than the normal boring physical senses that are well understood and characterised. I don't believe that there is anything that needs explaining. Nor do I believe the effect is any more than it is - dowsing does not demonstrate some inate connection with the world around us that could be enhanced, it is just a demonstration that our brain is much more observant than we sometimes realise, and can spot patterns at a level that is below our day to day threshold of awareness. I can marvel at what we are capable of doing, but don't see it as some demonstration of deeper hidden powers.

To try to explain my position: My job involves working with some extraordinarily complex software systems. I know that as a system's complexity increases the behaviour stops being linear and predictable and starts being chaotic (that's chaotic in the mathematical sense). Put together enough simple, predictable mathematical units and the sum of the whole can demonstrate 'intuitive' and surprising behaviour. The point here is that whilst we can build systems that behave in ways we cannot predict, and that can reach conclusions we could not calculate, they are not based on anything other than simple, clearly defined processes. No-one has to propose some quantum effect or higher plane of connectedness to explain how the systems do what they do.

Even the most complex software and computer systems we are capable of producing at present are just a tiny, tiny fraction of the complexity of just one human mind and body. If new behaviours can emerge from those relatively simplistic systems, I am very happy to believe that the human mind and body can conjour up subtle effects - intuition, dowsing, and so on. However, I see those effects as just being a natural result of a complex system that obeys all of the physical laws and chemical processes that we understand.

As such, there's nothing new to harness, and no process that can be refined to give us absolutes. A human being can get better-than-average results when guessing the location of water, but that's all . We don't have some internal ability to 'sense' the presense of liquid, we're just better than average at reading the cues given by the world around us. A slight dip in the ground, darker patches of grass, a tap and water tough - and our brain does the rest.

To throw the ball back into your court, how would you propose to validate dowsing? Where do you think that might lead us? You suggest that conventional scientific method is 'designed to disable' the process. It seems to me that this means we cannot rely on the process in any way (after all, scientific method is about producing reliable results). If dowsing is therefore unreliable, what value can you ascribe to it? Alternatively, what method would you suggest to investigate the cause and effect of dowsing abilities? What non-scientific methods would allow dowsing to be reliable?

I think I've probably talked myself out here, and will leave this discussion at this point (though I will be interested to read other's viewpoints and your own comments Tom). Thank you for keeping the discussion level headed and informative, despite our clearly opposite world views. Maybe next week we can talk about politics and religion! ;-)
- CommentAuthorludite
- CommentTimeAug 27th 2008
very well explained tuna. 10 out of 10 for clarity and content.
- CommentAuthormarktime
- CommentTimeAug 27th 2008
Tom, are you suggesting that you've never had a conversation with yourself? Never gone through a process of deductive reasoning in your mind? Never been tricked by your mind that you were seeing something or arriving at a conclusion that was patently fraudulent? How about a good conjuring trick? Levitation on stage? Nobody fools you, eh! Tom!

We think we can "see" or "hear". But it's not true. It's a conversation that our mind is having with our eyes or ears. What we call our senses. Your display screen is a mess of neurons firing off somewhere in your brain. And Tom, you are suggesting that we have another sense, but one that can't be tested because we don't know how to listen correctly. How do you think we we sense whatever you think we sense: through an antenna of hazel twigs, wire coat hangers or what? Does it matter what we use? What might be the nature of this signal? Its frequency spectrum or other characteristic? How do you think it reacts with our subconscious and manifests itself in our conscious world? In other words, in what way do you think the presence of water, say 2 metres below your feet, fires off the impulses to your muscles in a way that will cause the divining rod to move? Or is it the other way round for you?
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeAug 27th 2008
Posted By: marktimeNobody fools you, eh! Tom!
Frequently, unlike you, apparently. Can you boil all that down to a central question?
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeAug 27th 2008
Posted By: TunaThank you for keeping the discussion level headed and informative
Same to you tuna. I wrote a proper reply but somehow lost it - so maybe it's talked out, as you say. Anyway, I can't even remember how we got onto dowsing!
- CommentAuthormarktime
- CommentTimeAug 28th 2008
Simple. What evidence can you present for your supposed extra-sensory perception, e.g. dowsing?
- CommentAuthorTheDoctor
- CommentTimeAug 28th 2008 edited
my neighbour is a firm believer in dowsing

he and his brother were round the back of my house looking for the field drain that runs down the field so that they could connect into it.

They new it was deep, and roughly were it was.

I watched them wandering about for hours. (garden chair and a gin) Then out came the JCB. Big hole - no drain
try again - no drain
try again - no drain
big big mess!

i went over and suggested they dig a hole in line with the extremely obvious valley that runs down the field.

bingo!
field drain.

where else would you put the field drain but in the low point through the valley?

didn't stop their belief in the wee sticks though!
"maybe the fence wire was interfering"
"it was very deep"
"etc"

perhaps a canny dowser can read the land and the sticks are just a good way of protecting their 'art'

i could have chosen to grab a couple of sticks, wander about, and then tell them were to dig, but i chose to go with the facts rather than pander to their egos. They have lived here for 40+ years. I have lived here for seven.
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeAug 28th 2008 edited
Posted By: marktimeSimple. What evidence can you present for your supposed extra-sensory perception, e.g. dowsing?
Simple. Come over to my place and try for yourself. Deal?
- CommentAuthormarktime
- CommentTimeAug 28th 2008
Nice one. Fare will be a bit expensive though, I live in Madrid!
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeAug 29th 2008 edited
Posted By: marktimeI live in Madrid!
Ah - an average prosaic literal place, compared with the freedom and potential of Britain's age-old ambiguity.
Posted By: marktimeWhat evidence can you present for your supposed extra-sensory perception, e.g. dowsing?
I was dowsing a bit last night at a friend's house (not for anything man-made or even solid that could have left an unconsciously visible trace) in the light of this controversy about proveability. The neighbour, over the fence, did offer a friendly challenge and I near enough located the water pipe he was holding in mind, without going near it.

'friendly' is the key - he was willing and happy to see the demo succeed. I've explained how Intention is part of the process, how emotionally hostile pre-decided scepticism is also part of the process and gets what it Intends, and the practitioner's positive Intent to receive has to be strong in a relaxed, non-fighting, non-trying way, to be utterly unfazed by the contrary Intent. I suppose some could put on a good demo in the face of emotional scepticism but not me (as yet).

Scientists think it's unimportant whether the researcher secretly wants the results to come out one way or the other, or more properly is truly neutral about it. Scientific method is supposed to eliminate such Intentionality, as experimental error. However, the researcher's predisposition is actually a very powerful, if subtle force, and does affect scientific results. There are branches of respectable science that study that effect as a possibly useful phenomenon, not just as an irritation or danger. Anyway, despite that flaw, scientific method is quite strong enough to systematically eliminate Intentionality, by which dowsing (just one tip of a big iceberg) functions - regardless of whether the researcher is truly neutral, unconsciouly, secretly or overtly anti, or pro. That's why studies conducted by classic methods produce results at best only fractionally different from pure chance, to the satisfaction of the emotionally sceptic wing of science and its believers.

I got into all this stuff in isolation, avoiding other practitioners, not wanting their ideas and unconscious Intent to display their 'expertise', just asking the rods (aka holding Intention in mind) 'show me something interesting'. Now, just lately, I've gone onto a few forums, and I'm quite shocked at how little has been done to collate evidence to support the kind of things I've been saying. Widespread contempt for science and 'sceptics' matches in emotional content the contempt, that's much in evidence on this forum, of some scientists and 'sceptics' for 'new-agey' stuff.

So I can't offer either scientific research, or case-studies, that will convince you, marktime. All I can say is - try it, if you dare. I'll gladly help you start, on or offline - but 'show me something interesting' was enough, for me.

Back to last night, as well as directional pointing, rods can work, like a pendulum, to amplify unconsious muscle response to give (digital) yes/no (or true/false) answers to any statement held in mind (or even calibrated (analogue) magnitude answers, but I prefer to go 'it's 0-50m' Yes 'it's 0-20m' No 'it's 20-30m' Yes 'it's 26-30m' Yes 'it's 28-30m' Yes 'it's 28m' No 'it's 29m' Yes, and so on, down to milimetres if you want).

You can hypothesise statements that contain your own preconceptions, e.g. about how this works, or its significance or strength, and get contradictory or weak answers, so you have rephrase, to eliminate whatever's wrong, till the rods' response is crystal clear. It's humbling how anything ego- or mind-based gets stripped, and may get further refinement next time you proceed from what what you think you've established.

Once experienced, there's no turning back. As clearly as I see a tree, you 'know' that there's something happening, even if you don't (yet) know what, and to those who from the conviction of their inexperience say 'just self-delusion', the only convincing answer I have at present is 'try it'.
- CommentAuthorPaul in Montreal
- CommentTimeAug 29th 2008
Just to throw my point of view into the fray, I've always been able to use diving rods to find pipes and stuff like that in the ground - my father taught me how to do it when i was a child (and I mistakenly assumed it was the rods themselves which did it (best quality brass welding rods in Dad's case)).

Just last autumn we had something of a plumbing crisis in the basement and had to determine where two sewer pipes met - to the disbelief of the main plumber I got the rods out and was able to find the connection - though, to be fair, there was physical evidence on the ground (different texture concrete) but it wasn't certain if this was for the pipe or not. It turned out to be correct. Some of the plumbers had a go and all of them were able to locate the 420 foot geothermal well in the front garden (without being told it was there). A friend of mine tried and he was astounded he could find that and a gas line that he didn't know was there. When the rods crossed he asked "why did they cross there?" and I then showed him the gas entry. I had a walk up the street to see if I could located people's water connections and it seemed to work, though someone yelled at me from a passing car.

As to how it works, there's really no mystery at all. Humans have braincells with embedded ferrite crystals which are sensitive to magnetic fields. Most people can locate north if blindfolded with a correlation better than random chance. If you put a coil around someone's head and energize it, spin them around blindfolded and ask them to point north, then the success rate goes out of the window. There was a Horizon documentary about this probably 15-20 years ago (they were also looking at how birds migrate as they also have the iron-enhanced braincells too). So there's no need to invent hypotheses which can't be proven. I think the Randi challenge may be flawed as the "ideomotor" effect is deemed to be cheating somehow. Of course it's the person that moves the rods - how else could it work? As to why the magnetic field-sensitive braincells trigger small arm movements is another area for research, but it seems, from an evolutionary point of view a fairly useful skill to have for survival. I don't find it counter to any science at all. There's lots of subtle sense we have that we don't use much anymore - especially our sense of smell and hearing.

Paul in Montreal.
- CommentAuthorjoe.e
- CommentTimeAug 29th 2008
Posted By: Paul in MontrealAs to how it works, there's really no mystery at all. Humans have braincells with embedded ferrite crystals which are sensitive to magnetic fields.

But would, for example, an underground watercourse have a magnetic field around it?
- CommentAuthorPaul in Montreal
- CommentTimeAug 29th 2008
Posted By: joe.eBut would, for example, an underground watercourse have a magnetic field around it?

It would probably distort the magnetic field that's in the ground - as there would be a dislocation where the water is. The magnetic permeability of water is different than that of rock. Magnetic permeability measurements are done to determine what strata and such like are down boreholes. ( http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6020741.html ) I'm sure the effect must be small, but many physical senses are very sensitive to changes or differences so I am of the belief (!) that this is what the magentic-sensitive brain cells are picking up.

Paul in Montreal.
- CommentAuthormarktime
- CommentTimeAug 29th 2008 edited
Mmmmmm.... I think there is still some mystery about our ability to detect changes in magnetic fields. From Wiki on:

Reproducibility

It should be noted that the results of magnetobiological experiments are on the whole poorly reproducible. Some 10â€“20% of publications report failed attempts to observe magnetobiological effects. In the majority of experiments, their success depended on a rare happy coincidence of suitable electromagnetic and physiological conditions. Many of the experiments await confirmation by independent studies in other laboratories.

Dontcha love those "happy coincidences".

Paul, are we not "bathed" in electromagnetic fields since the introduction of radio and high voltage transmission lines?
- CommentAuthorPaul in Montreal
- CommentTimeAug 29th 2008
Posted By: marktimePaul, are we not "bathed" in electromagnatic fields since the introduction of radio and high voltage transmission lines?" alt="" src="https:///newforum/extensions/Vanillacons/smilies/standard/shocked.gif" >

Yes, but an electromagnetic field is not a magnetic field nor is it an electric field. If it functioned like a magnetic field compasses wouldn't work - and they clear still do work.

I'm sure that there are problems with magnetobiological experiments, but the presence of brain cells that contain ferrites at least gives some hope that there is a sound scientific basis for any dowsing abilities (at least for things that involve a magnetic field). I can no more dowse for something "intentionally" than I can levitate but I do seem to be able to spot pipes and stuff like that in the ground - as did many of my friends (much to their surprise). I'm firmly in the camp that there is a rational explanation for everything and that we don't need to invent fanciful hypotheses that have no way of being tested - just because they're stated doesn't mean they have any basis in reality.

Paul in Montreal.
- CommentAuthormarktime
- CommentTimeAug 30th 2008 edited
Errmm... an electromagnetic field has two discrete components at right angles to each other, an electric field and a magnetic field. In radio transmission the magnetic field does the job of exciting your aerials, etc. The presence of so much electromagnetic radiation in our environment means that researchers looking for the magnetic fields associated with brain activity are obliged to do it in very expensive double shielded rooms.

Now let's look at your magnetic compass. It has a permanent magnet with a field strength far in excess of the normal environmental electromagnetic radiation and it is this magnet which aligns itself with the Earth's magnetic field. If we pursue this further we can ask why can't we use a simple compass to detect any magnetic fields associated with water in the same way as your embedded ferrite crystals if they should exist? Or any of the sophisticated detection equipment used to detect changes in the Earth's magnetic field used in mineral prospecting?

As for disorientation in the presence of a magnetic field induced in a coil close to your head, well nothing new here folks. Move along now. It's only doc. doing his Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation again.

Good try though, Paul.
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeAug 30th 2008
HEE hee this looks like fun
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeSep 3rd 2008
marktime,
Posted By: fostertomtry it, if you dare. I'll gladly help you start, on or offline
how did you get on with acquiring some practical authority to speak on this subject? Can I help?
- CommentAuthorTheDoctor
- CommentTimeSep 3rd 2008
question.

if i were to dig twelve identical trenches eight foot deep and 200 feet long, and twenty feet apart across a flat field, put a 4" water main into each trench, but leave them all dry bar one, are the dowsers here convinced that they could pinpoint the 'active' trench?

If the answer is yes, then i think this would make for a good half hour of TV over the winter!!

I'd love to see this tested on a grand scale
- CommentAuthorCWatters
- CommentTimeSep 3rd 2008 edited
This page summarises the status of dowsing for the Randi prize...

http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2007/10/26/dowsing-for-reliable-evidence/

Quote:

The only test report contained in this archive is of Angela Patel, an English â€œlocation dowserâ€. From reading the test report, she appeared to be a very pleasant and sincere woman. She seemed happy with the procedure. The result: this fair test produced a convincing failure.

The two withdrawals are interesting. Randi advises people to test themselves in conditions that are as fair as possible, before submitting to the independent test. Both Michael Leuthold (object location) and Carl Brauhart (sulfide mineralization) did this and found that their abilities had gone.

From the publicly available correspondence, these both seem like sincere honest individuals. They were both convinced enough to apply to be tested, but were not able to pass a fair test under their own control.

The failure of four applicants to agree a fair test protocol is also educational. Some were not really able to define precisely what ability they were submitting for scrutiny. One, Ryan Whisler, did not seem to be aware that his claim to telekinetically move a dowsing pendulum was undermined if he was holding it. Elmer Baker did not want scrutinizing of a â€œsignal amplifierâ€ he was using to augment his dowsing rods. These examples highlight the inability of some people to understand what would constitute a fair test of their claim. It also shows, again, why self reported abilites cannot be trusted. End Quote

It goes on to details how some tests in Germany were conducted with negative results....

Quote: â€œThe test is a double-blind setting where 10 buckets or boxes (plastic or paper, depending on the wishes of the dowsers) are used the hide the target. Only one of the boxes contains the (randomly assigned) target. That is, it is a 1-out-of-10 test. For statistical reasons we run the first part of the test 13 times. The dowsers need 7 hits to pass the test and enter the second part of the test, which would consist of another 18 runs (of which 10 must be successful). If they fail the first part, they are out. The chance expectancy of the first part is of course 1.3 hits.

This is a very fair test procedure. Dowsers tend to rate their own accuracy very highly. Seven â€œhitsâ€ from 13 tries would seem to be well within the (self) reported capabilities of dowsers. What were the results? Dr. Mahner continued:

â€œâ€¦ The results of all these tests: 0-3 hits, which is just the typical variation around chance expectancy.â€ End Quote.

So there you go. Anyone think they can beat that test give it a go.
- CommentAuthorstephendv
- CommentTimeSep 3rd 2008
Posted By: TheDoctorquestion.

If the answer is yes, then i think this would make for a good half hour of TV over the winter!!

I'd love to see this tested on a grand scale

Indeed! And if the experiment works, then surely an independent body could be created that standardises and oversees the test and issues certificates to those dowsers that qualify. I perform security assessment of websites for a living and there are a number of certification tests I can go through to prove that I have the necesssary skills to do my job. My line of work has only existed for 10 odd years, dowsing has existed for hundreds so why can't I find a certified dowser?
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeSep 3rd 2008 edited
Posted By: TheDoctorI'd love to see this tested on a grand scale
If you read my long post above, you'll see why I think such a test wouldn't work. However, could you try a simplified version of this test, yourself as practitioner? Could you bring your ingenuity to bear to think of a way to set it up yourself in private so no one else's Intention was involved, for better or worse - and still get a result that would at least interest you, if not provisionally convince you? Don't just say no, from established belief, training and experience - what if your children's life depended on truly settling the question?

CWatters has also either not taken in what I wrote - or ignores it because it's self-evident rubbish perhaps? stephendv likewise, unless he's being ironic?!
- CommentAuthorjoe.e
- CommentTimeSep 3rd 2008 edited
Fostertom, if two people approached the problem in a spirit of non-sceptical philosophical enquiry, surely it would be possible for one of them to somehow quantify the abilities of the other?

Posted By: CWattersRandi advises people to test themselves in conditions that are as fair as possible, before submitting to the independent test.

That seems fair - surely you could, with a friend, run some sort of objective measurement of your own abilities without any specific desire to disprove them? Or does any set-up that includes the possibility of failure somehow bring on that failure?
- CommentAuthorstephendv
- CommentTimeSep 3rd 2008
There doesn't necessarily have to be someone else present for the test, you could rig a machine to record the results.
- CommentAuthorjoe.e
- CommentTimeSep 3rd 2008
Posted By: stephendvThere doesn't necessarily have to be someone else present for the test, you could rig a machine to record the results.

Yes- it's just that it would help in setting things up, if someone else could put together a situation in which water was running through one pipe and not another, or whatever, without the dowser knowing what the set-up was. When I was about eleven my sister and I did something similar. We took turns to go out of the room while the other placed an object under a mug, then came in and tried to find the hidden object with dowsing rods. Then we recorded the results (which were inconclusive and certainly not a dramatic demonstration of my supernatural powers, which was rather what I had been hoping for).
- CommentAuthorjonquil
- CommentTimeSep 3rd 2008
Can anyone explain why, when I was given two bits of wire made from coat hangers and walked around in a field with them held out in a v shape with the open part of the v towards me, at various points the wires raised themselves upwards without me doing anything? I wasn't knowingly doing it myself. I tried it at home later with some twigs and got nothing.
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeSep 3rd 2008 edited
This is an Autocad .dwg (2004) drawing of what I spent half a day dowsing last weekend - a present for friends whose land it is. Anyone recognise what it is? not an underground river! http://www.digitalbucket.net/Public/Download.ashx?q=98a63169bff9254982ee7b55d6841848 . To view, download http://www.edrawingsviewer.com/ .

I did it alone because I'm too mentally feeble! - and seem to lose it when others are watching. However, I can check the consistency of my results - close my eyes and walk in till the rod swings, open my eyes and I'm spot on the line between adjacent marked points 20yds away each way (on near-straight bits). The pinpointed spots on the line (through which I've drawn a spline curve) are locatable to the millimetre on site by dowsing, if I wish. Some of these spots are the crossing points - and again, I can close my eyes and walk in, following the rod's direction as it swings, till it spins, open my eyes and I'm right on it.

So I've no doubt that there's something real and privately reproducible happening - all I can say is try it.

31 to 60 of 111



	Site Map \| Home \| View Cart \| Pressroom \| Business \| Links	Contact Us
Logout
© Green Building Press

Green Building Forum

Categories

Feeds

General: Dowsing