Dowsing

[Shaker]

Well that's an incisive, keenly-honed and detailed rebuttal 

[Maeght]

That's the sort if thing I was referring to earlier when I said people should read behind the headlines to really understand if Water companies were saying dowsing works.

[Shaker]

That's the sort if thing I was referring to earlier when I said people should read behind the headlines to really understand if Water companies were saying dowsing works.

Except there's nothing about whether dowsing works or not, only a single paragraph of a BBC journalist's opinion that it doesn't.

[Maeght]

There are better websites to be fair which show what the water companies really say about dowsing, but it does say that  Severn Trent are very clear that dowsing rods form no part of official leak detection methods. The bit about it not working is just the scientist's opinion of course.

[Shaker]

There are better websites to be fair which show what the water companies really say about dowsing

We already know this, from the start of this thread. Ten out of twelve companies asked said that it's used. One water company invited a sceptic along to a filmed experiment - no word yet as far as I know on whether she's taken them up on the offer.

but it does say that  Severn Trent are very clear that dowsing rods form no part of official leak detection methods.

That it's not official is neither here nor there; the unofficial status is, I strongly suspect, for PR purposes. Official or not it's used regardless and presumably gets results otherwise it wouldn't be.

[Maeght]

We already know this, from the start of this thread. Ten out of twelve companies asked said that it's used. One water company invited a sceptic along to a filmed experiment - no word yet as far as I know on whether she's taken them up on the offer.
That it's not official is neither here nor there; the unofficial status is, I strongly suspect, for PR purposes. Official or not it's used regardless and presumably gets results otherwise it wouldn't be.

People were suggesting that Water Companies were saying dowsing is an effective method for finding leaks. What they were actually saying, in my view, is that leaks are very hard to find and.some operatives try dowsing but that is is not particularly effective. They compare it to other more modern methods which aren't very effective either. Would they be investing in drones and satellite technology if they could get away with using dowsing rods? You are interpreting what has been said to be an unwillingness to admit their use and to indicate that its use means it works. I interpret it differently and think this view is supported if you investigate further what the Water Companies have said.

[Shaker]

I've investigated what the water companies have said, and disagree with you.

[Maeght]

I've investigated what the water companies have said, and disagree with you.

We'll have to disagree then  but when I get the time I'll look again for links which I think supports my interpretation. One thing though, do you think saying dowsing works as well as some modern methods necessarily means it is effective?

[Shaker]

We'll have to disagree then  but when I get the time I'll look again for links which I think supports my interpretation. One thing though, do you think saying dowsing works as well as some modern methods necessarily means it is effective?

I'm saying that in 2017 10 out of 12 water companies think there's enough to it to carry on using it (unofficially, natch) despite/alongside the drones and the satellites. I'm sufficiently interested in that fact to wonder why and to want to know why they think this.

[floo]

We'll have to disagree then  but when I get the time I'll look again for links which I think supports my interpretation. One thing though, do you think saying dowsing works as well as some modern methods necessarily means it is effective?

As I have said before it was effective when my father and uncles did it; they certainly weren't playing games, a good water supply was essential for their horticultural businesses.

[Maeght]

I'm saying that in 2017 10 out of 12 water companies think there's enough to it to carry on using it (unofficially, natch) despite/alongside the drones and the satellites. I'm sufficiently interested in that fact to wonder why and to want to know why they think this.

I'm interested too but think that since finding leaks is so difficult they (the operatives) will try anything. This doesn't indicate to me that the Water Companies consider ut effective. You didn't answer my question.

[Maeght]

As I have said before it was effective when my father and uncles did it; they certainly weren't playing games, a good water supply was essential for their horticultural businesses.

Yes I know.

[Shaker]

I'm interested too but think that since finding leaks is so difficult they (the operatives) will try anything. This doesn't indicate to me that the Water Companies consider ut effective. You didn't answer my question.

I thought I had. If in the pursuits of leaks a company can invest squillions in drones and satellites but also spend a bit of loose change from down the back of the sofa on a man with a bent coat hanger, they presumably consider the methods functionally equivalent in pursuit of their aim (i.e. finding leaks with a view to stopping them).

[Stranger]

If in the pursuits of leaks a company can invest squillions in drones and satellites but also spend a bit of loose change from down the back of the sofa on a man with a bent coat hanger, they presumably consider the methods functionally equivalent in pursuit of their aim (i.e. finding leaks with a view to stopping them).

If they considered them equivalent, why would they spend the money on technology? The fact that they feel the need to invest in technology suggests that the bloke with the bent coat hanger isn't very effective at all...

[Shaker]

If they considered them equivalent, why would they spend the money on technology? The fact that they feel the need to invest in technology suggests that the bloke with the bent coat hanger isn't very effective at all...

So why are they still using both? Since they plainly are, as we know by now.

[Stranger]

So why are they still using both? Since they plainly are, as we know by now.

I don't know. It might be because it's slightly more effective than guessing (for the non-magical reasons suggested here) or it might just be because the people doing it have convinced themselves it's effective for the same reasons people will swear that horoscopes or prayer works.

However, if it was as reliable as some people make out, it would be very difficult to justify the investment in drones and satellites. Why spend all that money when a bloke with a coat hanger can do the job just as well?

[Shaker]

I don't know. It might be because it's slightly more effective than guessing (for the non-magical reasons suggested here) or it might just be because the people doing it have convinced themselves it's effective for the same reasons people will swear that horoscopes or prayer works.

However, if it was as reliable as some people make out, it would be very difficult to justify the investment in drones and satellites. Why spend all that money when a bloke with a coat hanger can do the job just as well?

The first three words were sufficient.

[Owlswing]

The first three words were sufficient.

Give it up, Shakes. This thread is like arguing for a proof of Jesus with Vlad - going nowhere.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This thread is like arguing for a proof of Jesus with Vlad -

All the evidence for Jesus is out there Owlswing, even hardened atheists accept Jesus as a probable historic figure, largely because a Jesus free first century Palestine doesn't fit the evidence.

[Maeght]

I thought I had. If in the pursuits  of leaks a company can invest squillions in drones and satellites but also spend a bit of loose change from down the back of the sofa on a man with a bent coat hanger, they presumably consider the methods functionally equivalent in pursuit of their aim (i.e. finding leaks with a view to stopping them).

No, there was a specific question about the meaning of something said by a water company rep.

[Owlswing]

All the evidence for Jesus is out there Owlswing, even hardened atheists accept Jesus as a probable historic figure, largely because a Jesus free first century Palestine doesn't fit the evidence.

Considering that all your "evidence" was written after the first century it is hardly what you could call topical evidence. In fact it is not evidence it is wishful thinking by those promoting Christianity and this is upheld by the diligence with which the Church confiscated and/or destroyed any written evidence that contradicted their version of "history".

I'm shutting up here before we get too far off-topic.

[Stranger]

The first three words were sufficient.

Not really, no. The second paragraph was particularly relevant to your previous post.

[Sriram]

You have shades of the believer/mystic in you, Shaker. Not entirely blind I would say.   Congratulations!

[Shaker]

You have shades of the believer/mystic in you, Shaker. Not entirely blind I would say.   Congratulations!

No. For that to be the case I would have to be a credulous clown, and you and your ilk have cornered the market on that with your biofield nonsense and suchlike. There's nothing to congratulate in gullibility.

I'm defending the scientific enterprise. As are, it would seem, Anglian Water, who as far as I can tell with complete transparency initiated an experiment in view of one and all with any results to be made freely available online. (An experiment to which the one who instigated it is yet to respond AFAIK). I'm happy with that; I can't see why anyone wouldn't be.

[Stranger]

As are, it would seem, Anglian Water, who as far as I can tell with complete transparency initiated an experiment in view of one and all with any results to be made freely available online. (An experiment to which the one who instigated it is yet to respond AFAIK). I'm happy with that; I can't see why anyone wouldn't be.

I haven't followed all of this but have they offered a properly designed, double blind experiment or just "come along and watch our bloke with his coat hangers"?

I'd be all in favour of the former but the latter is valueless.