<<The third test was a kind of contest between the dowser and a team of hydrogeologists. The scientific team, about whom we are told nothing significant, studied an area and picked 14 places to drill. The dowser then went over the same area after the scientific team had made their choices and he picked 7 sites to drill. (Why they did not both pick the same number of sites is not explained.) A site yielding 100 liters per minute was considered good. The hydrogeologists hit three good sources; the dowser hit six. Clearly, the dowser won the contest>>
Of course, one test alone is not enough. You would have to perform a number of similar tests in various locations. I think that if you did 10 tests, and the dowser had good results in 8 of them, it would be strong evidence in favour of dowsing.
Note that the test is not merely to find water, it is to find water in given quantities. This would defeat Randi’s claim that you can find water anywhere you dig. Maybe so, but not 100 liters/ minute.
You might set additional criteria, such as asking the dowser and the hydrogeologists to predict how deep to drill to get at the water. Or you might say that its only a success if the water is drinking quality. These things would give you measurable objectives for success or failure.
Just as a reminder: this forum is for Comments on Cecil’s Column. I have let things run slightly awry, because it was an interesting and not irrelevant discussion. However, I would like to remind y’all of the rules for this forum:
Please try to stick to the topic, which is dowsing. The lengthy discussions of James Randi’s challenge started on-topic, but became pretty tangential, if not downright off-topic. Whether James Randi is a scientist, a liar, a thief, a cheat, a philathropist, a philanderer, or even French, is irrelevant.
Please refrain from personal attacks. You can challenge the comments, but not the person. Calling each other cranks or liars is out of bounds in this forum (admittedly, it’s a fine line.)
Well, this has happened before here. I left for months, and came back hoping that things would be better, but it seems it’s still the same.
I’ve pretty much concluded that moderated boards are, generically, a mistake. What they mean in effect is that the first one to resort to outright lies wins, because it becomes impossible afterward to state the truth without calling a liar a liar, and that’s not allowed.
Peter Morris has intentionally libelled James Randi, and he has intentionally libelled me – but I’m not allowed to complain about it. So screw it; I can use the time I spend here to do more important things.
Thank you, peter morris, for responding with a link to some dowsing tests, and the site you cite (skepdic.com) is a well-respected one run by Prof. Bob Carroll of Sacramento City College in California, and someone with whom I have corresponded.
Bob Carroll’s dowsing page mentions three german tests. One seems to refute the other.
The third test, and the one you referred to, actually used drilling to verify the results. However, your truncated text is immediately followed by
You have engaged in some very selective quoting, my friend, by leaving that part out. After reading the entire skepdic article, I don’t feel it supports your position at all. None of the “positive” tests produced irrefutable, reproducible results.
Here’s the problem. A claim is made, “I can find water!”. How to test it? Drills are expensive, and if water is everywhere, drilling doesn’t prove much anyway; pumps can draw differents amounts of water at different times, and measuring flow, quantity, etc., complicates the whole thing a whole darn lot.
So, to reduce a test to a more practical matter, how can we design something that tests, very simply, a limited claim, and something that doesn’t require advanced statistical analysis to determine if the claimant has passed or not? That is what Mr. Randi attempts to do. If you claim that you can find water in one out of 10 jars, and you can do it a dozen times in a row, exactly as you claim, then you are a winner. Either you found it or you didn’t; there is no gray area and no need to compare gallons, liters, flow rates, potability, or depths.
Is that unfair? If you claim you can do it and under mutually agreeable, ideal conditions, you don’t, that is a big hint that your claim doesn’t hold water (sorry, couldn’t resist).
If you feel that dowsing for water in jars or pipes is not comparable to dowsing for it underground, then you will have to change your claim and the test will have to be redesigned. No longer can a dowser claim he can find just “water,” but only that he can find some water under very limited, difficult-to-test, in-the-earth conditions that don’t match current geological knowledge. In short, the claim becomes harder to believe the more it has to be restricted.
But, in answer to my question, “how would you design a test…”, you responded with cites to other tests that have already been done. I repeat, how would you design a test for dowsing that would be fair to all parties and also an accurate measure of claimed ability?
You continually overlook the fact that all the people in that test showed that they could detect the water in the pipes, when they knew where the pipes were. The first step of that test was to check and make sure they could detect water flowing through an uncovered pipe, and then in a burried pipe when they knew the location. They all said that they could detect that pipe just fine. And yet, as soon as they don’t know the location of the pipe, they fail.
You keep saying that it’s unfair, because they never claim to be able to detect water in pipes, but that is untrue. They do claim that they can detect water in pipes, right at the begining of the test.
What part of “they were talking rubbish” didn’t you understand?
I repeat what I have said so many times before. I think that most dowsers are liars, quite possibly all of them are. But I also think Randi is a fraud too.
You people keep trying to present me as believing in dowsing, which I have said I don’t. Just because I point out how seriously flawed Randi is doesn’t mean I believe in his subjects. They are ALL liars.
Please read what I write, and address accurately.
Rather than respond here, given that we have already been asked by a mod not to continue this debate here, I will respond in the GD thread set up by Irishman, linked above.
Sorry that you feel that way, John, but that’s your call. It is certainly possible to say “Your statement is erroneous” or “Your statement is false.” It is not polite to say “You are a liar.” There is a difference, and that’s the difference that we’re moderating on.
It is probably true that the first one to resort to name-calling “gets away with it” – although in this thread, we’ve allowed a fair amount of name-calling on both sides. I always think that the first one to resort to name-calling has lost the argument by demonstrating an inability to make a valid point without using insults.
I repeat: this forum is for discussion of dowsing, as per Cecil’s column. It seems to have devolved into a series of rants against or defenses of Randi, which belongs in a different forum. Further comments here should please be restricted to reasonably relevant comments on Cecil’s column.
It’s an interesting approach, sorry I didn’t notice it before. Hmmm. Antibiotics cost of money, too, and I could just eat ice cream and save a bundle. We needed a plumber, and that cost a bundle, I could probably have saved a lot of money by asking a friend to do an incompetent job without the right tools and with no knowledge of plumbing. I probably didn’t need to buy a computer from a reputable dealer, either, it would have been cheaper to make one from string and an old TV set and a typewriter keyboard, right? A visit to a doctor’s office is a lot more expensive than just asking my aunt (who has had no “professional” medical training but is very old and has seen a lot. Well, OK, she doesn’t really “see” much anymore being near blind, but she has strong opinions on everyone else’s health.)
In short, you get what you pay for. You pay for a cheap non-professional well-meaning amateur (giving a benefit of the doubt that he/she aint an outright fraud) and you’ll get about the results you would exepct.
I don’t know where you are located, but if you are within the United States, I’d contact the US Geological Survey.
(…)
Also, grab a geology book or two and learn about the ground beneath your feet. It’s a lot of fun, you’ll learn stuff, and it’s money better spent than on a dowser.
Thanks a lot, Patch.
That’s very good advice for saving money and getting water.
You remind me to always look up any government office for any assistance, free, which it might be in a good position to render to us taxpayers.
And also to go to technical books if one could not or would not approach professionally trained experts.
Slight difference between proving the theories of Einstein or the existence of the atom and figuring out whether or not we are standing above a water pipe, don’t you think?
P.S. I should imagine that in a modern urban environment it’s actually quite difficult NOT to be standing above some sort of conduit for water or sewage, or at least within a few feet of one.
That’s some subconscious. The rest of the post, which says no more about this subconscience which is the driver for the skill, is therefore from this point on trash.
Or perhaps, should you really want to further your stated claim, Now Vee May Perhaps to Begin?
MOD NOTE: Please be aware that this is a ten-year old thread, revived yesterday by Leo Bloom. That’s OK, we just don’t want people getting frustrated when they don’t get responses from people who may no longer be reading the boards.
HOWEVER: If this is simply goading Peter Morris, for a ten-year ago comment, then it’s in extremely poor taste, and certainly borders on jerk-ishness. Under discussion by mods, and thread is closed until decision reached.
