Dowsing

[Maeght]

Yes, I know that & don't believe there any evidence. It just shows that many water companies use the technique (though seem somewhat embarrassed to admit).

They say it us used occasionally.

I was asking Sriram for evidence that most water companies in the world use it mainly or exclusively and that it is shown to work. Don't think yoyr link is evidence of that if it was intended to be. A good summary though.

[Enki]

This attempt at showing the so called efficacy of the dowsing method reminded me of something I remembered reading about a few years ago. It was about fake bomb detectors which could, it seems, discover explosives, cocaine and even smuggled ivory. The idea that these devices were useful caught on to such an extent that they were used in conflict zones and by governments around the world.

The fake "detectors" - sold with spurious but scientific-sounding claims - were little more than empty cases with an aerial which swings according to the user's unconscious hand movements, "the ideomotor effect."

It actually started its life as a device which was said to find lost golf balls and ended up as a fully fledged bomb detector. In 2001 it was tested by Home Office scientist Tim Sheldon  who warned that not only were the claims for this device misleading but that it would be potentially dangerous to use.

However, the Iraqis spent 53 million pounds on these devices and it was sold in places like Thailand, the Middle East and Mexico. Even some UK government agencies were guilty of promoting this device.

It seems that the Somerset based business man, James McCormick, who sold these devices is now serving a jail sentence for fraud, as is a certain Gary Bolton  and others who were also part of the scam. The judge in Bolton's trial said of the device "They had a random detection rate. They were useless."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29459896

[Walter]

This attempt at showing the so called efficacy of the dowsing method reminded me of something I remembered reading about a few years ago. It was about fake bomb detectors which could, it seems, discover explosives, cocaine and even smuggled ivory. The idea that these devices were useful caught on to such an extent that they were used in conflict zones and by governments around the world.

It actually started its life as a device which was said to find lost golf balls and ended up as a fully fledged bomb detector. In 2001 it was tested by Home Office scientist Tim Sheldon  who warned that not only were the claims for this device misleading but that it would be potentially dangerous to use.

However, the Iraqis spent 53 million pounds on these devices and it was sold in places like Thailand, the Middle East and Mexico. Even some UK government agencies were guilty of promoting this device.

It seems that the Somerset based business man, James McCormick, who sold these devices is now serving a jail sentence for fraud, as is a certain Gary Bolton  and others who were also part of the scam. The judge in Bolton's trial said of the device "They had a random detection rate. They were useless."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29459896

yes, an interesting case which raises many questions about human nature and the countries that bought it  is very telling

[Sriram]

The efficacy of dowsing is connected to intuition and instincts. What we also call gut feeling. All these, along with ESP, are a range of phenomena connected to the mind and the biofield.   They are present in all life forms and make the entire globe one single interconnected system.

It is true that we don't know much about how these things work or how they are linked with our system.

But these things exist and cannot be wished away. Makes sense for scientists to come out of the 'two box syndrome' and make attempts to understand these phenomena instead of lumping them all together as 'woo' or some such rubbish, and dismissing them.

[Stranger]

But these things exist and cannot be wished away. Makes sense for scientists to come out of the 'two box syndrome' and make attempts to understand these phenomena instead of lumping them all together as 'woo' or some such rubbish, and dismissing them.

Difficult to do when you find that there is no phenomenon to understand. Dowsing simply doesn't work: Dawkins debunks dowsing.

[floo]

Difficult to do when you find that there is no phenomenon to understand. Dowsing simply doesn't work: Dawkins debunks dowsing.

Hmmmmmmmmm! Well my experience of water dowsing, and geographical dowsing is rather different.

[SusanDoris]

Hmmmmmmmmm! Well my experience of water dowsing, and geographical dowsing is rather different.

whatever your experience is, IF you had kept a count of every time you observed, or were involved in, any dowsing occasion, if  you had made a note of what happened every single time anyone walked with dowsing rods as to exactly what happened, not just remembering afterwards, then such results would not show an overwhelming success rate. they would show results no better than, and most likely far worse than, chance. 

[floo]

whatever your experience is, IF you had kept a count of every time you observed, or were involved in, any dowsing occasion, if  you had made a note of what happened every single time anyone walked with dowsing rods as to exactly what happened, not just remembering afterwards, then such results would not show an overwhelming success rate. they would show results no better than, and most likely far worse than, chance.

I beg to differ, but each to their own opinion on this topic.

[ProfessorDavey]

The efficacy of dowsing is connected to intuition and instincts. What we also call gut feeling. All these, along with ESP, are a range of phenomena connected to the mind and the biofield.   They are present in all life forms and make the entire globe one single interconnected system.

Oh no - here we go again - yet more completely unevidenced assertions.

[Maeght]

The efficacy of dowsing is connected to intuition and instincts. What we also call gut feeling. All these, along with ESP, are a range of phenomena connected to the mind and the biofield.   They are present in all life forms and make the entire globe one single interconnected system.

It is true that we don't know much about how these things work or how they are linked with our system.

But these things exist and cannot be wished away. Makes sense for scientists to come out of the 'two box syndrome' and make attempts to understand these phenomena instead of lumping them all together as 'woo' or some such rubbish, and dismissing them.

So we can add ESP to the list of stuff you believe in for which there is no evidence. Investigate things of course but you should accept that until those investigations find some actual evidence then these are beliefs not facts and to hold those beliefs does not some enlightened thinking as you seem to think.

[ProfessorDavey]

I beg to differ, but each to their own opinion on this topic.

Nope not 'each to their own' - implying this is a matter of opinion. Dowsing either works or it doesn't - it isn't a matter of opinion. And to determine if it works you need to perform proper experiments, such as the one in the video. And when you actually test dowsing in a proper rigorous experiment it becomes clear that it doesn't work.

[Shaker]

If dowsing is as big a pile of hooey as some here would have us believe (according to various studies, apparently) then surely the offer made by Anglian Water of a filmed experiment with sceptics present and the results posted online shouldn't be an issue, surely?

If it really doesn't work the experiment will confirm it, right?

So what's the problem?

[Maeght]

If dowsing is as big a pile of hooey as some here would have us believe (according to various studies, apparently) then surely the offer made by Anglian Water of a filmed experiment with sceptics present and the results posted online shouldn't be an issue, surely?

If it really doesn't work the experiment will confirm it, right?

So what's the problem?

There is no 'apparently' about it. Properly structured double bind tests have shown dowsing is no more effective than chance. If Anglian water were to do a film then fine but it would need to be under controlled conditions in order for any valid conclusions to be reached.

[Stranger]

If dowsing is as big a pile of hooey as some here would have us believe (according to various studies, apparently) then surely the offer made by Anglian Water of a filmed experiment with sceptics present and the results posted online shouldn't be an issue, surely?

If it really doesn't work the experiment will confirm it, right?

So what's the problem?

It's already been tested (see #254 and Dawkins debunks dowsing) but provided they do another properly controlled double blind trial, then of course it's not a problem.

[Shaker]

Excellent.

[ProfessorDavey]

If dowsing is as big a pile of hooey as some here would have us believe (according to various studies, apparently) then surely the offer made by Anglian Water of a filmed experiment with sceptics present and the results posted online shouldn't be an issue, surely?

If it really doesn't work the experiment will confirm it, right?

So what's the problem?

It would depend on how the experiment was performed. It would need to be truly a double blind test - i.e. with neither the dowser nor the person conducting the study knowing where the water was. Also the experiment needs to be devoid of any other cues that might consciously or subliminally lead the dowser to know where the water was. So for example an explanation for the 'success' of dowsing has been that experienced dowsers are actually (albeit perhaps not realising it) using other cues to find water - for example a slight dip in the surface of a filed, subtle changes in colour of vegetation etc.

[Walter]

If dowsing is as big a pile of hooey as some here would have us believe (according to various studies, apparently) then surely the offer made by Anglian Water of a filmed experiment with sceptics present and the results posted online shouldn't be an issue, surely?

If it really doesn't work the experiment will confirm it, right?

So what's the problem?

so they've actually made an offer then? I'm not aware of that, please can yo make reference to it (I'm a bit slow sometimes)

[Nearly Sane]

so they've actually made an offer then? I'm not aware of that, please can yo make reference to it (I'm a bit slow sometimes)

it's in the original story but it's a bit flip. It says come and see it not test in a properly defined double blind test. Indeed the offer seems to underline that they don't understand the idea of testing in since they suggest a YouTube video would be useful.

[Walter]

The efficacy of dowsing is connected to intuition and instincts. What we also call gut feeling. All these, along with ESP, are a range of phenomena connected to the mind and the biofield.   They are present in all life forms and make the entire globe one single interconnected system.

It is true that we don't know much about how these things work or how they are linked with our system.

But these things exist and cannot be wished away. Makes sense for scientists to come out of the 'two box syndrome' and make attempts to understand these phenomena instead of lumping them all together as 'woo' or some such rubbish, and dismissing them.

you appear to live in a world so different from the one I'm in. However millions of people who share similar beliefs doesn't make those 'beliefs' TRUE . It simply illustrates that most of the population are stupid 

[Walter]

it's in the original story but it's a bit flip. It says come and see it not test in a properly defined double blind test. Indeed the offer seems to underline that they don't understand the idea of testing in since they suggest a YouTube video would be useful.

oh yeah, I remember that now, I thought it was a new offer I wasn't aware of.

[Nearly Sane]

whether people are charlatans or not is irrelevant to the point.

Spiritualists are not people who claim they can find stuff out about you and the mechanism they use is to talk to your dead relatives, they are people who claim they can talk to your dead relatives and offer finding stuff out about you as evidence that they do.

Can you see the difference?

To be honest, no. Because you could just as easily state 'Dowsers are not people  who claim they can find water and the mechanism they use is to find disturbances in the flow of energy by using two sticks, they are people who claim they can find disturbances in the flow of energy by using two sticks and they    offer water as evidence that they do.

[Nearly Sane]

I am still up for the plan that Shaker and A.N. Other on here work with the bods  from Leicester University to come up with an appropriately designed double blind test, and we have an away day picnic to see it.

[Walter]

I am still up for the plan that Shaker and A.N. Other on here work with thebodsgrom Leicester University to come up with an appropriately designed double blind test, and we have an away day picnic to see it.

apart from a lovely day out and a pic-nic , experimenting over and over until you get the result 'you' want is definitely the way to go in this new world of emotions rather than facts situation that we find ourselves .
Perhaps  the experiments can be conducted by unqualified non-scince , gender-fluid types who could indicate their flip-flopping gender by loudly shouting their preferences each time they flip

surely any results obtained should be regarded as binding , because they say so .
Who could argue wit that?

[Shaker]

it's in the original story but it's a bit flip. It says come and see it not test in a properly defined double blind test. Indeed the offer seems to underline that they don't understand the idea of testing in since they suggest a YouTube video would be useful.

I assumed that that means they won't put themselves in a position of being accused of concealing any evidence but instead will shove it online for all to see. Again, I'm not seeing the problem with this that some of you seem to.

[Shaker]

experimenting over and over until you get the result 'you' want

Please can we leave Brexit to the thread dedicated to it?