Dowsing

[Nearly Sane]

I raised this elsewhere and was also discussing Myers Briggs as an example of something big companies spend millions on even though it has no scientific basis. My friend, a psychologist,  who hates it with a passion referred to it as witch doctor voodoo - what can we tell about him from his choice of phrasing?

[Rhiannon]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/britains-water-companies-still-use-11560650

Witches and wizards. FFS.

Interesting that they are technicians they already employ by the looks of it. So in all likelihood they are subconsciously reading the landscape/environment and are moving the rods while unaware of it. No cost to the company and customer and it's clearly working for them. Otherwise they wouldn't do it. Probably how Floo's family got it to work too.

It's not fucking witchcraft whichever way you look at it.

[Shaker]

and again the appeal to authority and numbers

No. Your super-dooper fallacy detector is miscalibrated it would seem - take Vlad's back to the shop with you when you go.

It would be an appeal to authority and numbers if I said "Dowsing works because a majority of water companies think that it does." (Remember that in nearly all cases it's the 'because' that flags the fallacy).

Instead what I'm saying is that these companies (not, I'd have thought, generally given to anything that costs them money without demonstrable results) think that the practice is sufficiently effective for them to continue to do it, investing in time and money in the process (though I suspect not much of either). One such company has invited a sceptic to take part in an experiment purporting to demonstrate the efficacy of the practice. That is what I understand to be walking the walk, not just talking the talk.

I'm not seeing a problem so far, to be honest.

[Rhiannon]

I raised this elsewhere and was also discussing Myers Briggs as an example of something big companies spend millions on even though it has no scientific basis. My friend, a psychologist,  who hates it with a passion referred to it as witch doctor voodoo - what can we tell about him from his choice of phrasing?

He wants to be more accurate? There, not difficult.

You can suggest 'superstitious bollocks'.

[Shaker]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/britains-water-companies-still-use-11560650

Witches and wizards. FFS.

Interesting that they are technicians they already employ by the looks of it. So in all likelihood they are subconsciously reading the landscape/environment and are moving the rods while unaware of it. No cost to the company and customer and it's clearly working for them. Otherwise they wouldn't do it. Probably how Floo's family got it to work too.

It's not fucking witchcraft whichever way you look at it.

The worth of that article - i.e. zero - leapt out at me at this bit in particular:

It's a bit like witchcraft, a medieval technique invented 450 years ago to source water underground.

Dowsing was invented in 1567, three years after Shakespeare was born? Really now, Joshua Barrie? Really? actually this 450 years bullshit comes from Le Page herself, which Barrie merely repeated.

What tickles me is that in both articles is not even the implication but the statement that the populace is supposed to be "worried" by this. I'm not - NS seems a bit edgy but I'm holding up well so far.

[Nearly Sane]

He wants to be more accurate? There, not difficult.

You can suggest 'superstitious bollocks'.

Since this is all metaphor I am bemused at your idea of accuracy. Do you mean 'culturally sensitive'?

[Rhiannon]

'It's a bit like witchcraft'. 

[Nearly Sane]

No. Your super-dooper fallacy detector is miscalibrated it would seem - take Vlad's back to the shop with you when you go.

It would be an appeal to authority and numbers if I said "Dowsing works because a majority of water companies think that it does." (Remember that in nearly all cases it's the 'because' that flags the fallacy).

Instead what I'm saying is that these companies (not, I'd have thought, generally given to anything that costs them money without demonstrable results) think that the practice is sufficiently effective for them to continue to do it, investing in time and money in the process (though I suspect not much of either). One such company has invited a sceptic to take part in an experiment purporting to demonstrate the efficacy of the practice. That is what I understand to be walking the walk, not just talking the talk.

I'm not seeing a problem so far, to be honest.

Aw, the Dunning Kruger effect too. This is rather lovely as an illustration of the problem if the fallacies. So you make an assumption about the companies being reliable in some way, which given what companies have spent money on such as graphology and Myers Briggs, is demonstrably unjustified and then use that to ignore any actual studies on dowsing.

[Shaker]

Aw, the Dunning Kruger effect too. This is rather lovely as an illustration of the problem if the fallacies. So you make an assumption about the companies being reliable in some way, which given what companies have spent money on such as graphology and Myers Briggs, is demonstrably unjustified and then use that to ignore any actual studies on dowsing.

Just following Sally Le Page's lead:

Severn Trent there, a FTSE 100, state-owned water authority that supply about 4.5 million households in the UK

[jeremyp]

I think we probably need to think about what it means to say "it works". I've seen televised experiments with water diviners where the diviner was able to detect water quite easily, right up until the moment when they introduced a double blind protocol. At that point the diviners stopped being able to do any better than random chance. There's nothing inherent about water that makes divining work.

However things buried in the ground are rarely concealed as well as in a double blind experiment. There are often subtle signs on the surface that the diviner might pick up subconsciously and transmit to his or her rod via the ideomotor effect. For example water close to the surface may manifest as greener grass or softer soil. Pipes are usually laid in trenches so there might be a dip, or the vegetation might be less healthy or the ground might sound different as you walk over it.

[Nearly Sane]

The worth of that article - i.e. zero - leapt out at me at this bit in particular:

Dowsing was invented in 1567, three years after Shakespeare was born? Really now, Joshua Barrie? Really? actually this 450 years bullshit comes from Le Page herself, which Barrie merely repeated.

What tickles me is that in both articles is not even the implication but the statement that the populace is supposed to be "worried" by this. I'm not - NS seems a bit edgy but I'm holding up well so far.

Am I edgy? Oh how cool, I have been edgy in years. BTW your above post is an ad hominem using one issue to dismiss everything else. I was just going gfor the line at fallacy bingo but I suspect at the rate you are going House must be on the cards.

[Rhiannon]

Since this is all metaphor I am bemused at your idea of accuracy. Do you mean 'culturally sensitive'?

Nope. My immediate thought on seeing something that isn't medieval witchcraft described as such was that the person using it is a fearful fundie - until now it's only been among those Christians that get scared of witches and witchcraft that I've seen such inaccuracy. Maybe it's normal for scientists to be cavalier with language and accuracy but I'd have thought avoiding misunderstandings and the appearance of prejudice was important for someone who seeks to inform.

Your friend can describe his psychological woo as whatever he wants to over dinner with you. If he wants to educate people who might otherwise be into it though he could choose a more accurate phrasing.

[Nearly Sane]

Just following Sally Le Page's lead:

And? Just because you might both make the same mistake about appeals to authority makes no difference to you using a fallacy.

[Shaker]

I think we probably need to think about what it means to say "it works". I've seen televised experiments with water diviners where the diviner was able to detect water quite easily, right up until the moment when they introduced a double blind protocol. At that point the diviners stopped being able to do any better than random chance. There's nothing inherent about water that makes divining work.

However things buried in the ground are rarely concealed as well as in a double blind experiment. There are often subtle signs on the surface that the diviner might pick up subconsciously and transmit to his or her rod via the ideomotor effect. For example water close to the surface may manifest as greener grass or softer soil. Pipes are usually laid in trenches so there might be a dip, or the vegetation might be less healthy or the ground might sound different as you walk over it.

*applaud*

[Nearly Sane]

Nope. My immediate thought on seeing something that isn't medieval witchcraft described as such was that the person using it is a fearful fundie - until now it's only been among those Christians that get scared of witches and witchcraft that I've seen such inaccuracy. Maybe it's normal for scientists to be cavalier with language and accuracy but I'd have thought avoiding misunderstandings and the appearance of prejudice was important for someone who seeks to inform.

Your friend can describe his psychological woo as whatever he wants to over dinner with you. If he wants to educate people who might otherwise be into it though he could choose a more accurate phrasing.

so bollocks is accurate scientific phrasing?

[Nearly Sane]

I think we probably need to think about what it means to say "it works". I've seen televised experiments with water diviners where the diviner was able to detect water quite easily, right up until the moment when they introduced a double blind protocol. At that point the diviners stopped being able to do any better than random chance. There's nothing inherent about water that makes divining work.

However things buried in the ground are rarely concealed as well as in a double blind experiment. There are often subtle signs on the surface that the diviner might pick up subconsciously and transmit to his or her rod via the ideomotor effect. For example water close to the surface may manifest as greener grass or softer soil. Pipes are usually laid in trenches so there might be a dip, or the vegetation might be less healthy or the ground might sound different as you walk over it.

So in any scientific sense the 'dowsing' doesn't work.

[Rhiannon]

so bollocks is accurate scientific phrasing?

I'm assuming really wouldn't use that. That was me being mildly amusing.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm assuming really wouldn't use that. That was me being mildly amusing.

No, I think it just needs refining. We just need a scale.

[jeremyp]

Instead what I'm saying is that these companies (not, I'd have thought, generally given to anything that costs them money without demonstrable results)

Well companies do not take decisions, people in companies do. Thus they are subject to the same prejudices and frailties that affect all of us.

Companies indulge in all kinds of nonsense without properly investigating whether they work or not. In my own field, for example, there is quite a lot of cargo cult engineering like so-called "Agile". People claim to use "Agile" for their software projects in spite of the fact that they don't know what it is for the most part and nobody measures it to see if it works.

I bet none of these water companies have tested water divining against mere guessing, particularly for finding water. If you drill a bore hole in the UK, you're apparently about 90% certain to hit water at some point.

[Nearly Sane]

All the Agile worshippers are moving to DevOps now surely?

[jeremyp]

So in any scientific sense the 'dowsing' doesn't work.

Sorry, how are the possible mechanisms I described not scientific? I'd argue divining doesn't work by a means unknown to science but it possibly can work by more prosaic mechanisms. As I said, I've seen experiments where the diviner is deprived of sensory cues as to the location of the water, but I've never seen an experiment pitting a diviner against a random person not using divining in the kind of environment in which divining is normally used. If the diviner gets better results than a non-diviner in a field in the countryside, can we not say divining works?

[Shaker]

Well companies do not take decisions, people in companies do. Thus they are subject to the same prejudices and frailties that affect all of us.

Do you think then that a decision to employ dowsing is one taken by an individual alone or perhaps a very small group (3 or 4), or would it be one that would need the rubber stamp of quite a lot of people collectively? (Cards on the table: I think it's hugely more likely to be the latter).

[jeremyp]

All the Agile worshippers are moving to DevOps now surely?

devops is a natural outgrowth of agile, as far as I understand.

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry, how are the possible mechanisms I described not scientific? I'd argue divining doesn't work by a means unknown to science but it possibly can work by more prosaic mechanisms. As I said, I've seen experiments where the diviner is deprived of sensory cues as to the location of the water, but I've never seen an experiment pitting a diviner against a random person not using divining in the kind of environment in which divining is normally used. If the diviner gets better results than a non-diviner in a field in the countryside, can we not say divining works?

Because it isn't the 'dowsing' that is working, it's the person's expertise on other levels. Let's say a good spiritualist can cold read people better than a random person who hasn't done any reading of people. Does spiritualism work then ?

[Owlswing]

From Anglian Water

If you've ever tried to find a water pipe underground then you'll know that it can be very difficult you will try anything. We're happy to take you out and demonstrate, let us know and we can arrange. We'll even make a film and post it on our social channels putting both sides!

From Severn Trent

We've found that some of the older methods are just as effective than the new ones, but we do use drones as well, and now satellites. You can find more information here: http://ow.ly/8A0b30gH7r8

I'll lay a pound to a pinch of pig-shit that Miss Sally Le"it's all bollocks"Page won't take them up on it - she'll just reject outright not having the balls to put-up-or-shut-up!