# Dowsing on photos - Test **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [October 6, 2009, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dowsing-on-photos-test/512774 "2009-10-06T03:45:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![pramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/91b2a8/32.png) [@pramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pramanujan)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dowsing-on-photos-test/512774/61 "2009-10-11T16:56:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Because if you don’t give any hints as to how many are alive or dead, complicated odds won’t have to be figured in. Just give pramanujan the photos after both sides agree what would count as a “win”, let him do that voodoo that he do, and tally the results. Let us do it. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dowsing-on-photos-test/512774/62 "2009-10-11T18:16:37Z")
> [@pramanujan](#): > > Let us do it. Do you mean that this idea is acceptable, or do you mean you don’t want others to intrude on a private matter? ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dowsing-on-photos-test/512774/63 "2009-10-11T18:46:46Z")
Pramanujan, what were all the issues you had with some of the clarity of the pictures? Was some of the pics themselves of poor quality, or are you having some transmission problems through cyberspace that affected the quality? Nobody wants this to affect the results whatsoever, so we’ll see to it and eliminate this being any reason for failure by taking steps to prevent this. I’m all caught up from reading the other thread. As I read through it, it appeared like Czarcasm, Musicat, glee, RJKUgly all felt like a cat with a new mouse to play with when a few of these dowsers showed up. 😃 Reading the results, 84% would have been impressive, indeed, if only he hadn’t been given a big clue that the majority of the pics were of the living. RJKUgly realizes that shouldn’t have been done, but it was still worthwhile. After having this clue if one wanted to guess all alive, that would have had a 90% success rate since there were only pics of 10 dead people. Of course, if pramanujan wants to, he can now state in the future to other friends it went down something like this: “I was given 50 photos, and didn’t know which were alive and dead. Each photo was a 50/50 chance of either being living or dead. I had an 84% success rate which is much better than chance. ” This is the kind of anecdotal stories that get spread since quite a few don’t like details. Regardless, I appreciate RJKUgly and pramanujan taking the time to do all of this. Congrats on **Uncertain** for their psychic ability. 😉 If there are any dowsers in the Texas area, or Oklahoma area, look me up. ---
**Author:** ![JimOfAllTrades](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@JimOfAllTrades](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JimOfAllTrades)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dowsing-on-photos-test/512774/64 "2009-10-11T19:49:12Z")
I’m going to repost this for in case **pramanujan** missed it in the middle of that last longer post I made. As far as establishing a time limit, **pramanujan** , how long does it take for you to test pictures? If we scheduled in advance the time you would receive the pictures could you test 20 pictures in two hours? Four hours? Or how long? ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dowsing-on-photos-test/512774/65 "2009-10-11T21:50:27Z")
Pramanujan, how far are you from Kolkata (formerly Calcutta)? There is a science and rationalists group based out of there. I’ve wrote to Jeff at the Randi foundation to see if they can assist us with somebody in your area. Assuming we find a contact we all can agree on in India that is near you, would you be willing to do something that Czarcasm has already suggested? And that is this: > [@](#): > > Random photos of people, alive and dead, are flipped over so that you cannot see them, and you dowse them and tell us which are which. You’ve stated yes, and that to send the photos to you. Let’s do this, but not over the internet. Have you tried this already in person, when somebody else did the flipping of the pics without you having knowledge of which pic it was? ---
**Author:** ![SiXSwordS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@SiXSwordS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SiXSwordS)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dowsing-on-photos-test/512774/66 "2009-10-11T22:40:03Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > Pramanujan, how far are you from Kolkata He’s in Ahmedabad which looks to be about 1,500 miles. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dowsing-on-photos-test/512774/67 "2009-10-11T23:23:43Z")
> [@SiXSwordS](#): > > He’s in Ahmedabad which looks to be about 1,500 miles. Thanks, just didn’t want to look it up at the time. Not sure if it this one site was basing distance on road or air miles, it didn’t say, but it showed, 1924 kilometers/1196 miles. Still a long distance. Maybe there is still hope in someone doing this in person, because this particular science and rationalist association in India has been established since 1985. ---
**Author:** ![Uncertain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Uncertain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncertain)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dowsing-on-photos-test/512774/68 "2009-10-13T00:47:56Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > Reading the results, 84% would have been impressive, indeed, if only he hadn’t been given a big clue that the majority of the pics were of the living. Not really, at least not in the way that you mean. It could just be that his “technique” gives many more “alive” readings then “dead” readings. It would be a mistake to consider 84% impressive because it’s much greater than 50%. It would also be a mistake to believe that his knowing that exact number of alive and dead would invalidate the test. Also, the “percent right” is not the appropriate criterion when we’re talking about different fractions of the two possibilities. > [@](#): > > RJKUgly realizes that shouldn’t have been done, but it was still worthwhile. No, he thinks that it’s not a big issue. See post #48. > [@](#): > > After having this clue if one wanted to guess all alive, that would have had a 90% success rate since there were only pics of 10 dead people. As I said above, “percent success” is an inappropriate criterion. If he could consistently get a 90% success rate while guessing 80 alive and 20 dead, that would be quite an accomplishment. ---
**Author:** ![pramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/91b2a8/32.png) [@pramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pramanujan)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dowsing-on-photos-test/512774/69 "2009-10-13T02:43:21Z")
We had been discussing on this for quite some time. Is anyone trying to collate the pictures? Please finalize the details and send the photos soon. ---
**Author:** ![pramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/91b2a8/32.png) [@pramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pramanujan)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dowsing-on-photos-test/512774/70 "2009-10-13T02:49:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Pramanujan, what were all the issues you had with some of the clarity of the pictures? Was some of the pics themselves of poor quality, or are you having some transmission problems through cyberspace that affected the quality? Nobody wants this to affect the results whatsoever, so we’ll see to it and eliminate this being any reason for failure by taking steps to prevent this. As RJKUgly mentioned, the earlier photos were zoomed and cropped to give uniform size. This may have affected the quality of the photos. Some were really clear, which means there was no transmission problem. ---
**Author:** ![pramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/91b2a8/32.png) [@pramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pramanujan)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dowsing-on-photos-test/512774/71 "2009-10-13T03:12:43Z")
> [@](#): > > As far as establishing a time limit, pramanujan, how long does it take for you to test pictures? If we scheduled in advance the time you would receive the pictures could you test 20 pictures in two hours? Four hours? Or how long? Testing may take something like 2 hours. There is no hard and fast limits. There is lot of pressure on my time, I am a banker by profession. I can just squeeze some time when I reach home. So I can say, I may need a day, if I get sufficient time. > [@](#): > > razncain > Pramanujan, how far are you from Kolkata (formerly Calcutta)? There is a science and rationalists group based out of there. I’ve wrote to Jeff at the Randi foundation to see if they can assist us with somebody in your area. I am at Ahmedabad, on the western part of India and Kolkata is on the east. If we get someone in my area, I am willing to try it out. I am myself a rationalist, skeptic and atheist. It is just that I happened to come across “dowsing” and found some uniform patterns. My attempts are to reach a logical conclusion with the help of people like you all. > [@](#): > > Assuming we find a contact we all can agree on in India that is near you, would you be willing to do something that Czarcasm has already suggested? And that is this: > > Quote: > Random photos of people, alive and dead, are flipped over so that you cannot see them, and you dowse them and tell us which are which. > > You’ve stated yes, and that to send the photos to you. Let’s do this, but not over the internet. Have you tried this already in person, when somebody else did the flipping of the pics without you having knowledge of which pic it was? I have not tried these with photos flipped over. I do not think this will work. Any way, let me try this too. I shall come back on this after a trial. > [@](#): > > It could just be that his “technique” gives many more “alive” readings then “dead” readings. There is no technique. It is just happening. May be you come across more photos of living persons than those of dead. > [@](#): > > As I said above, “percent success” is an inappropriate criterion. If he could consistently get a 90% success rate while guessing 80 alive and 20 dead, that would be quite an accomplishment. Let me suggest - Do not give any hint to me. You may group the photos as you may decide without disclosing to me. Give in the details and the rationale for the type of grouping, after the results are out. I am also eager like everybody to try it out. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dowsing-on-photos-test/512774/72 "2009-10-13T14:08:02Z")
> [@Uncertain](#): > > Not really, at least not in the way that you mean. It could just be that his “technique” gives many more “alive” readings then “dead” readings. It would be a mistake to consider 84% impressive because it’s much greater than 50%. It would also be a mistake to believe that his knowing that exact number of alive and dead would invalidate the test. Also, the “percent right” is not the appropriate criterion when we’re talking about different fractions of the two possibilities. I understand, and I suspect you’re right, pramanujan probably is fully aware that most are only going to have more pics of the living than dead, but all depending on what the pics reveal of course. A better way may have been to get black and white pics from mostly people, say taken in the thirties or forties, to at least give us an equal amount of living and dead, and make it more difficult than to mostly just guess “living” and have a high percentage always come out right. Had the pics at least been equally divided of living and dead, it would have been more impressive, at least to me, anyway, and would have warranted further tests. > [@](#): > > No, he thinks that it’s not a big issue. See post #48. Thanks for having me re-read it. In the other thread, RKJUgly admits it wasn’t a rigorous test, and in post #212 of the Water Witching thread, he states it was his fault for having more pics of living than dead. Personally, I think most didn’t want any clues given out either, but after he had done so by stating there were more pics of living than dead, I was at least hoping that he would just put in 26 pics of the living to qualify it for that, and I imagine pramanujan would have still guessed a much higher percentage of the pics living. Also, to correct one of my mistakes, it was 8 dead, not 10 that I previously stated. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dowsing-on-photos-test/512774/73 "2009-10-13T14:12:03Z")
> [@pramanujan](#): > > As RJKUgly mentioned, the earlier photos were zoomed and cropped to give uniform size. This may have affected the quality of the photos. Some were really clear, which means there was no transmission problem. Pramanujan, thanks for clarifying about the pics. If we do this again over the internet, we’ll make sure the pics are to your satisfaction. You also stated this in the water witching thread: > [@](#): > > The pictures were sorted as per the reaction the dowsing rod showed. Those who have seen the photos would agree that many were not clear. Unfortunately, I do not have a printer online. I tried with somebody’s printer. Since the prints were all appearing smudged, I just took three prints only. So you dowsed them all of them over the monitor, since the printer you borrowed were smearing the prints on those three? > [@](#): > > I have not tried these with photos flipped over. I do not think this will work. Any way, let me try this too. I shall come back on this after a trial. If it doesn’t work, why do you suppose that affects the dowsing rods? If you dowsed those 50 photos over the monitor, do them again blindfolded while a friend flips through the pics. See if that too, affects your dowsing rods. No need to go through all 50, just take 8 pics of the deceased, and 8 of the living ones. If the dowsing rods don’t work on any of these methods, don’t you think that’s a good indicator that you are unconsciously moving the rods? Jeff, of the Randi foundation hasn’t got back to me yet, Monday was a holiday in the states. I’m hoping to hear back from him soon. I’ll let you know if we can find somebody in your area that will test you. Until then, do those simple tests first, it might save us all a lot of trouble and time in the future. ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dowsing-on-photos-test/512774/74 "2009-10-13T14:25:35Z")
> [@Uncertain](#): > > No, he thinks that it’s not a big issue. See post #48. Post 48 is **RJKUgly** ’s response to **Czarcasm** ’s rather boorish and incorrect suggestion that there should be no discussion of how the proportion of live vs. dead is determined for the test. Establishing test procedure is not the same thing as handing out “hints” during the test. ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dowsing-on-photos-test/512774/75 "2009-10-13T14:41:01Z")
> [@pramanujan](#): > > We had been discussing on this for quite some time. Is anyone trying to collate the pictures? Please finalize the details and send the photos soon. > [@pramanujan](#): > > I have not tried these with photos flipped over. I do not think this will work. Any way, let me try this too. I shall come back on this after a trial… > > There is no technique. It is just happening. May be you come across more photos of living persons than those of dead. I believe **Uncertain** is using “technique” as shorthand for “the thing that’s just happening.” While you’re waiting for the slow internet discussion to take it’s course, you might be interested in exploring the limitations of “the thing that’s just happening.” For example, try the following unscientific tests: 1. What happens when you flip the pictures over? 2. What happens when you flip the pictures over and randomly mix them so you don’t know which is which? 3. What happens when you dowse over a blank piece of paper? 4. What happens if you mix a blank piece of paper in with the upside-down pictures? 5. What happens if you dowse with your eyes closed? 6. What happens if someone else sets down a random picture (so you don’t know which one it is) when you’re dowsing with your eyes closed? 7. What happens if you cover the picture with a blank sheet of paper? 8. What happens if someone else sets down a random picture (so you don’t know which one it is) and covers it with a blank sheet of paper? ---
**Author:** ![Uncertain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Uncertain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncertain)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dowsing-on-photos-test/512774/76 "2009-10-13T18:00:28Z")
> [@zut](#): > > Post 48 is **RJKUgly** ’s response to **Czarcasm** ’s rather boorish and incorrect suggestion that there should be no discussion of how the proportion of live vs. dead is determined for the test. Establishing test procedure is not the same thing as handing out “hints” during the test. It seems to me that he was expressing the opposite of the view that **ranzcain** attributed to him. And telling the dowser how many are dead doesn’t invalidate the test. And it doesn’t matter whether he is told before or after being sent the pictures. But I grow weary of arguing about this till I’m blue in the face, and occasionally being patronized along the way by people who are uncomfortable with what they see as “complicated probabilities” and seem unfamiliar with common statistical tests. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dowsing-on-photos-test/512774/77 "2009-10-13T18:17:13Z")
**Uncertain** said: > [@](#): > > It would be a mistake to consider 84% impressive because it’s much greater than 50%. It would also be a mistake to believe that his knowing that exact number of alive and dead would invalidate the test. Also, the “percent right” is not the appropriate criterion when we’re talking about different fractions of the two possibilities. The problem is you are using an actual understanding of statistics. What **razncain** is talking about is the standard untrained layperson’s expectations and interpretations. “Each picture can be alive or dead, so he has a 50/50 chance on each picture, which means his overall expectation by chance is 50/50. So if he scored 84% right, that beats chance.” This is what we have been fighting in this thread and the water witching one: the attitude that the simplest test set up will conform to that basic calculation, rather than requiring a more complicated calculation to determine what chance is and whether the performance is significant or not. > [@](#): > > It could just be that his “technique” gives many more “alive” readings then “dead” readings. In which case if we had sent him a pile skewed to dead, he would have bombed miserably. But we can’t know that right now. What we know is he took his readings and gave us results, got 84% right, but that was close to chance performance given the skewing of the photos and his awareness of the skewing. **pramanujan** said: > [@](#): > > We had been discussing on this for quite some time. Is anyone trying to collate the pictures? Please finalize the details and send the photos soon. I’m sorry this is taking a time, but it is the nature of the beast. We are trying to be rigorous in our test design so that we can be sure the results mean something. Unfortunately, we are left to plan as a committee over the internet, with people posting in bits and spurts as they can. None of us can dedicate the time to this one effort and see in through, we have to squeeze it in to our real lives and commitments. Please be patient. ---
**Author:** ![JimOfAllTrades](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@JimOfAllTrades](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JimOfAllTrades)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2009, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dowsing-on-photos-test/512774/78 "2009-10-14T00:53:02Z")
And I apologize for being unavailable the last couple of days. It seems work picked this week to slam me. As far as how many dead or alive in each batch, I’m with **Uncertain** when he says it shouldn’t matter as long as we design and analyze with that in mind. In fact, since he seems to have a _much_ better grasp of the statistical side of things than I do, I’d bow to whatever he suggests in this matter. Again, I can come up with some more pictures, but it will take a few days and I’m not sure if I get much more than twenty or so. If we’re going to do two rounds minimum, it seems to me that may not be enough. So please, if anyone else has a good source for pictures, chime in. Does anyone have a feel for the legalities of posting pictures from the local paper? That would make it easier to find pictures. But those are also more likely to be available on-line, although I suppose if the pictures came from various small town papers across the country they’d be pretty tricky to find. Based on the discussion above, we need to establish if will we send scanned pictures via email again, or should this be done with physical pictures through the mail. I think we can use email. What do the rest of you say? ---
**Author:** ![SiXSwordS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@SiXSwordS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SiXSwordS)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2009, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dowsing-on-photos-test/512774/79 "2009-10-14T00:56:17Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > a pile skewed to dead First Album? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2009, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dowsing-on-photos-test/512774/80 "2009-10-14T00:58:37Z")
I ask again that pictures from newspapers that can be accessed via online image searches not be used. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dowsing-on-photos-test/512774.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dowsing-on-photos-test/512774.md?page=5)