Dowsing - does it work? To Cecil's reply

[vanmar]

:smack:Dear Cecil’s,
It’s always good to investigate the paranormal and questionable things that happen in the world we live in. I agree with some of the things you said about the topic of dowsing, but I don’t fully agree with your opinion. I am not a dowser but have tried this phenomenon, and I must say it worked for me. I actually traced a water pipe I ran under ground in my yard using the crossing method. I also traced a water channel from my neighbours yardwith success. This water channel from my neighbours yard has been seen and known to travel under the foundation of my house to exit at the opposite end, after along rainy season even days after the rain has passed this channel still flows continuously as if there is an aqueduct present. These ducts are known to exist where I live for many years. The experiment I carried out was to see if the response of the rod was corresponding to these known water features. I was very surprised to find out that I could plot these water paths or water ways using the rods and match them with known data and proof of how the water use to travel under the house. This was done one day during summer when we had a depression that caused about 3 hours of rains that saturate the soil. I suggest- to rule the myth out I think in some cases you have to know what you’re looking for are investigating, I knew water pipes ran near were the water exits but I understand the rods and knew how they indicate findings . And also sense the rods wanting to probe the water pipes as I was moving close to them. But I also felt them indicating a water channel as I walked and plotted where the x’s were observed. My hypothesis about how these rods work I think maybe the best theory. I believe that all water ways under the earth cuts magnetic flows or pushes against the field so to create new wave forms, are act as blockers or dampeners of the magnetic fields that the rods are detecting if they are magnetic, so if the rods cross a weaker gradient the rods tend to move along that axis mapping out the water imagery or proposed site (base on my observation- and hwo the pipes were layed). Call it crazy, but most scientefic hypothesist about magnetic fields and weather patterns are still hypothesist, and there more reliable results and predictions still date back many years and they cant explain does either. But they work. A next phenominon maybe as it relates to the stick that is not magnetic, this also makes the rod theory unconnected. It may be possible that there is a natural resourceful element God has placed in the elements of survival for men, such as trophic growth , wherein plans grow towards the sun light because that’s where they get there energy from and the same goes for water under the soil. So it may be possible that something unexplainable but along this theory maybe pulling against the human compass, that we create when – holding a stick- in line with the magnetic pull of the earth- and the sun and the elements making this possible also with the rod.
There is one problem I have and I hope to make it clear, we must not always rely solely on proven science because as humans we have learned over the years that changes take place that often vindicate or dismisses scientific claims. It’s even valid to say we often dont know how all things work are how they well react, for example look at pharmaceutical companies and the many recalls made over the years. Their scientific claims sometimes is dismissed based upon unknown factors that may arise, but to concretely say that a drug does infact what it is made to, is redundant as it relates to side effects or unseen problems with the drug years to come. Scientific claims have also been taken as gospel in the science world. Look at the theory of magnetic fields around the earth. The magnetic pull on the earth by scientist may be taken as fact or fiction, within reasoning one may ask, how do they know this? Have they gone under the earth to test against their theories are just because a (magnet object spins in a dish of water with a pin to the and south poles, suposedly then its true. Maybe the magnet has found water ha-ha. I’m saying this to say, let us not dismiss a claim or define one as paranormal which is also real because we interact with it, but not because science cannot put its hands on it to test it outside its element which is unknown does not make it faceable. It’s often impossible to create a control for an element that is unknown to you; neither can you create a control for an element you don’t know that is foreign to your knowledge. What you create controls for most times during scientific experiments are your own observations and perceptions, example who is touching me? There is no one in the room, I then clean the house, maybe cobwebs are lurking from the ceiling. I repeatedly feel the web touching me again and again. Is it that the element does not exist? Because science cannot create invisible independent intellectual entities? Is it then plausible to say because our control does not match against the expected results it’s not believable, then I must ask, what really was your control all about?
Look deeper
-van mar

[Jackmannii]

@vanmar

I’m saying this to say, let us not dismiss a claim or define one as paranormal which is also real because we interact with it, but not because science cannot put its hands on it to test it outside its element which is unknown does not make it faceable…Is it then plausible to say because our control does not match against the expected results it’s not believable, then I must ask, what really was your control all about?

In other words, “your science cannot possibly measure my brand of woo”.

It can, it has, and your woo has been found wanting, like so many others.

I suggest reading up on the scientific method, as you clearly do not understand it.

[conway]

You know what does work? Paragraphs.
Link to column.

[Osomatic]

@vanmar

:smack:Dear Cecil’s,
It’s always good to investigate the paranormal and questionable things that happen in the world we live in. I agree with some of the things you said about the topic of dowsing, but I don’t fully agree with your opinion. I am not a dowser but have tried this phenomenon, and I must say it worked for me. I actually traced a water pipe I ran under ground in my yard using the crossing method. I also traced a water channel from my neighbours yardwith success. This water channel from my neighbours yard has been seen and known to travel under the foundation of my house to exit at the opposite end, after along rainy season even days after the rain has passed this channel still flows continuously as if there is an aqueduct present. These ducts are known to exist where I live for many years. The experiment I carried out was to see if the response of the rod was corresponding to these known water features. I was very surprised to find out that I could plot these water paths or water ways using the rods and match them with known data and proof of how the water use to travel under the house. This was done one day during summer when we had a depression that caused about 3 hours of rains that saturate the soil. I suggest- to rule the myth out I think in some cases you have to know what you’re looking for are investigating, I knew water pipes ran near were the water exits but I understand the rods and knew how they indicate findings . And also sense the rods wanting to probe the water pipes as I was moving close to them. But I also felt them indicating a water channel as I walked and plotted where the x’s were observed. My hypothesis about how these rods work I think maybe the best theory. I believe that all water ways under the earth cuts magnetic flows or pushes against the field so to create new wave forms, are act as blockers or dampeners of the magnetic fields that the rods are detecting if they are magnetic, so if the rods cross a weaker gradient the rods tend to move along that axis mapping out the water imagery or proposed site (base on my observation- and hwo the pipes were layed). Call it crazy, but most scientefic hypothesist about magnetic fields and weather patterns are still hypothesist, and there more reliable results and predictions still date back many years and they cant explain does either. But they work. A next phenominon maybe as it relates to the stick that is not magnetic, this also makes the rod theory unconnected. It may be possible that there is a natural resourceful element God has placed in the elements of survival for men, such as trophic growth , wherein plans grow towards the sun light because that’s where they get there energy from and the same goes for water under the soil. So it may be possible that something unexplainable but along this theory maybe pulling against the human compass, that we create when – holding a stick- in line with the magnetic pull of the earth- and the sun and the elements making this possible also with the rod.
There is one problem I have and I hope to make it clear, we must not always rely solely on proven science because as humans we have learned over the years that changes take place that often vindicate or dismisses scientific claims. It’s even valid to say we often dont know how all things work are how they well react, for example look at pharmaceutical companies and the many recalls made over the years. Their scientific claims sometimes is dismissed based upon unknown factors that may arise, but to concretely say that a drug does infact what it is made to, is redundant as it relates to side effects or unseen problems with the drug years to come. Scientific claims have also been taken as gospel in the science world. Look at the theory of magnetic fields around the earth. The magnetic pull on the earth by scientist may be taken as fact or fiction, within reasoning one may ask, how do they know this? Have they gone under the earth to test against their theories are just because a (magnet object spins in a dish of water with a pin to the and south poles, suposedly then its true. Maybe the magnet has found water ha-ha. I’m saying this to say, let us not dismiss a claim or define one as paranormal which is also real because we interact with it, but not because science cannot put its hands on it to test it outside its element which is unknown does not make it faceable. It’s often impossible to create a control for an element that is unknown to you; neither can you create a control for an element you don’t know that is foreign to your knowledge. What you create controls for most times during scientific experiments are your own observations and perceptions, example who is touching me? There is no one in the room, I then clean the house, maybe cobwebs are lurking from the ceiling. I repeatedly feel the web touching me again and again. Is it that the element does not exist? Because science cannot create invisible independent intellectual entities? Is it then plausible to say because our control does not match against the expected results it’s not believable, then I must ask, what really was your control all about?
Look deeper
-van mar

These ducts are known to exist where I live for many years

So why did they need anybody to dowse them? Are you saying that you found water where everybody already knew it was?

Scientific claims have also been taken as gospel in the science world.

A common claim. Difference is, eventually once there is better scientific evidence, the original theories are discarded. Not so with gospel.

Feh. It’s the same ol’ same ol’, really. In any case, if you are actually able to dowse anything, do yourself a huge favor and get a few reliable and non-partisan folks to watch you do it, get some videos, and eventually I’m sure that the JREF will come knocking at your door to offer you a million bucks.

[Machine_Elf]

@vanmar

I am not a dowser but have tried this phenomenon, and I must say it worked for me. I actually traced a water pipe I ran under ground in my yard using the crossing method. I also traced a water channel from my neighbours yardwith success. This water channel from my neighbours yard has been seen and known to travel under the foundation of my house to exit at the opposite end, after along rainy season even days after the rain has passed this channel still flows continuously as if there is an aqueduct present. These ducts are known to exist where I live for many years.

If you were tracking ground water where you already knew it to exist, then you weren’t dowsing; this is not a meaningful test of the dowsing phenomenon.

The experiment I carried out was to see if the response of the rod was corresponding to these known water features.

Then your experiment was poorly designed, as it has not accounted for the possibility that your own knowledge of where the water was influenced the behavior of the rod you were holding.

My hypothesis about how these rods work I think maybe the best theory.

Forming a hypothesis about how these rods work amounts to putting the cart before the horse: most here will agree that you haven’t yet established whether these rods work.

…So it may be possible that something unexplainable but along this theory maybe pulling against the human compass, that we create when – holding a stick- in line with the magnetic pull of the earth- and the sun and the elements making this possible also with the rod.

If this is true, then the rod should work even when the user does not know where the water is. Your experiment has not tested this hypothesis.

There is one problem I have and I hope to make it clear, we must not always rely solely on proven science because as humans we have learned over the years that changes take place that often vindicate or dismisses scientific claims.

This is sound advice, but if one is to dismiss centuries of consilient scientific research, one had better come up with more evidence than can be obtained by walking around a swamp whilst waving a stick and claiming “I’ve found water!”

It’s often impossible to create a control for an element that is unknown to you; neither can you create a control for an element you don’t know that is foreign to your knowledge. What you create controls for most times during scientific experiments are your own observations and perceptions…

Controls are also created for experiments in which the observations, perceptions and even more subtle mind/body interactions can influence the results. This is why drug trials are double-blind: neither the test subject nor the person administering the drugs knows who is getting the placebo, and who is getting the actual drug. It’s been abundantly demonstrated that if either one of them knows, the subject’s physiological response to the drug may be affected.

Likewise, a double-blind study would be appropriate for testing dowsing. Since you personally know where water exists on your property, you can’t participate in the test. A stronger test would be:

1. Find someone else who claims to be a dowser.
2. Bring him/her to your property, and tell him to find the water under your yard.
3. Because you might be subconsiously providing clues to him about where the water actually is, you can’t be present while this dowser does his work; you just get to show up afterwards and assess his results.

This still doesn’t rule out the possibility that the dowser is relying on environmental cues that reveal to him where groundwater is likely to be. To eliminate this possibility, I’d suggest an even more rigorous test:

1. Bury ten pipes in different areas in your yard.
2. fill only one of them with water.
3. Repeat the above-described dowser test.

Did he find the water? Yes? That’s great, but maybe he got lucky; after all, there’s a one-in-ten chance that a randomly-thrown lawn dart might find it. Want to rule out luck? You can’t, but you can come close by repeating the test many times (filling a different pipe each time), and comparing his success with that of the randomly-thrown lawn dart.