| Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption |
| Mary-Jane |
So - water dowsing, how does that work then?I'm quite interested in it and I noticed that the founder of Ty Nant (just up the road from us) had hired a dowser to help locate his spring water. (Sadly, he's just passed away http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/8452151.stm )
So does anyone have any experience of dowsing? Is it poppycock - or is there summat in it? |
||||||
| jema |
Been proved time and time again to be totally useless, but you will never get a dowser to admit it.
But that is why there is so much evidence that it is hopeless, dowsers are suckers to prove themselves in proper experiments. Of course when they fail they always find a reason for it. Of course in the "actual field" it may be a bit different, e.g. someone who knows a lot about where water can be found may be good at finding it and may even think the silly sticks help, whereas as all they are really doing is something on the sub-concious level. |
||||||
| Jamanda |
Personally I'm in the poppycock camp, but I have good friends who swear it's true. I believe Pel's dad is an expert. | ||||||
| toggle |
i think there's something in it,.
I've had it work for me when i was about 8, i didn't know what it was, why i was walking about a nursery car park until after the wires had moved and the bloke explained i'd just detected the water supply to the greenhouses. i was the test to prove to my very sceptical father that dowsing could work |
||||||
| RichardW |
I think in Wales you go outside, ponce about for a bit & then point at the ground & say drill there & you will get water.
Or to quote the people that drilled our borehole.
|
||||||
| T.G |
i did dowsing for a reike course, but not for finding water 
|
||||||
| Hairyloon |
So why can't it be scientifically tested in the field? Except that it defies scientific explanation... |
||||||
| Hairyloon |
Unusual way to find a reike course. Wouldn't Google be easier? 
|
||||||
| jema |
Science has to test one thing in isolation.
It cannot seperate whether Joe Bloggs is smart at seeing where water will be in a field, from whether the sticks are doing anything. But Joe Bloggs the dowser is usually totally convinced they can detect water where ever it is, and is perfectly happy to be shown a set of containers some of which contain water and some of which don't, at which point they invariably fail. |
||||||
| Mary-Jane |
*snort* 
|
||||||
| Tavascarow |
I was a sceptic till I met my ex wife.
She could dowse & I had a go & found the drain running under MIL floor. Don't ask me how it works but I know it does. 
|
||||||
| jema |
Then win yourself a million dollars! If you can tell an empty water container from a full one to any degree above luck then that money is available. |
||||||
| Hairyloon |
Like Darwin did in arguably the best bit of science in the history of science? |
||||||
| Jamanda |
How are you defining best? |
||||||
| jema |
And evolution has remained being called a theory in part because of the problems of testing. But really I am giving very very short paraphrased answers and so they should not be picked at like that. |
||||||
| Hairyloon |
Arguably. 
That is not relevant. You cannot argue that it was not -ing good science, and it was done without isolating all the contributing factors. Meteorology, oceanography, climate change to name but a few sciences which, by your definition must be quackery. |
||||||
| Hairyloon |
The relevant point is that, granted in an ideal world science wants to test things in isolation, but in the real world, that is not possible. Because you cannot isolate and test individually all the parts of something does not make the investigation unscientific. Nor does finding that one part of something does not work in isolation from the whole disprove the function of the whole. What, precisely is the definition of dowsing anyway? |
||||||
| Bodrighy |
I was always a total sceptic until I had a go myself with a couple of bent coathangers and found a lost drain. I suspect it is more to do with magnetic fields than water specifically as I have been able to find electric cables etc underground since but doubt very much it would work with the tubs of water mentioned. If it does react to magnetic fields that would make a bit more scientific sense.
Pete |
||||||
| cab |
Really, if anyone believes they can do it, I'll help you design a trial to test it.
It has been tested, again, and again, and again, in many different areas and in many different ways, and it has always been found not to work. But if you want a go, lets try and win the JREF million dollars. |
||||||
| Mary-Jane |
Go on then - I'm up for that
|
||||||
| cab |
Go and find some buckets and some willing accomplices. Someone needs to put a jug of water on the floor, upturn the buckets such that the jug is covered and the other buckets are all just upturned in other locations. If you can find the water more often than chance alone would dictate, thats a damn good start... |
||||||
| Mary-Jane |
Do you mind if I don't do it *now*? I'm just off to bed...but I will return to this.
|
||||||
| cab |
Go for it. If you have, say, nine buckets and, say, three of them have jugs of water in it, and you can show that you can reliably spot them by dowsing, then we can contact JREF and ask for guidance on the trial. Have them set up, go in and dowse and label the three buckets you think, not that hard if it works. |
||||||
| vegplot |
We've had this discussion before. | ||||||
| Jamanda |
And no doubt we will have it again. |
||||||
| Hairyloon |
Thought you said you'd help design a test? Not just repeat what has been done endlessly before in the past and found to not work. If "dowsing" works then it is clearly something more than simple detection of water. It might only work on running water for example. Might be more complex than that. |
||||||
| wellington womble |
I'd just like to be a bit of a pedant and point out that those disciplines are mostly made up scientific theories, and on the whole fairly untested due to thier complex nature. This doesn't really add much to argument though. Dousing might work, or it might not. I don't personally think it matters much, unless people are charging lots of money for it knowing it doesn't work. But of course you can't really prove competence or incompetence that unless you have some sort of testable standard. So it's in the interests of people who do think it works to make it testable. Sadly, this sort of talent rarely seems to be found in anyone who also has the ability to provide proof that stands up to any degree of scrutiny. |
||||||
| RichardW |
What about a grid work of hoses?
You could have some with water flowing in them & some not & then change them around to see if they can still be found. Cant you find "any thing" by dowsing? I thought you had to ask yourself a question that the rods would then answer? |
||||||
| Hairyloon |
Apparently, it has been scientifically proven that you cannot find water in a bucket by dowsing. However, I do believe there are different types of dowsing. |
||||||
| jema |
The JREF will accept anything that demonstrates dowsing ability, running water, magnets, electric fields..... if you think you can detect it with a couple of sticks it can be tested.
A positive test in any such field would revolutionise science! It would shake things up more than relativity, and yet some how or other despite the millions of people claiming to have such gifts it remains undemonstrable once any critical spotlight is placed upon it. |
||||||
| cab |
Its the first stage of a test; if dowsing works, it'll work to find water under a bucket. If you can't do that, then I question whether further testing is worthwhile.
Yet most often underground water percolates only slowly, and I have encountered numerous examples of dowsers claiming to find water that is effectively static. If you can't do the simple stuff, if you evade the simple proofs you could generate... Do you not think that the dowser starts to come across as rather evasive? |
||||||
| cab |
Yep, that could work. |
||||||
| cab |
Randi has said in the past that he kind of likes dowsers. They're always sincere, they're always good eggs, they always heartily believe in what they do. And they always agree to the test as I've described, and they always fail it. And they always go away with numerous reasons why something must be stopping them passing, because dowsing always works... |
||||||
| ksia |
And it resulted in me (ia) bare knuckle fighting various people to the death so I'm staying out this time. (Go jema!) |
||||||
| Chez |
Getting back to MJ's original question, when Ma bought her property in the 50's, and wanted a bore-hole, a chap came along with a hazel twig, wandered about a bit and told them where to dig, successfully.
I've had a go at it. I can find stuff like drains and cables, but not 'points' - ie, something hidden in a house doing it with a pendulum over a map. |
||||||
| Treacodactyl |
What's the scientific way to find water then? I thought that's just as iffy as dowsing when you want to find a place to dig a bore hole? | ||||||
| Hairyloon |
And of course dowsers never speak to each other, so no dowser ever tested knows that every other dowser has failed that test.
So have all (or any) of these numerous reasons been analised and eliminated? |
||||||
| cab |
The reasons are many and varied. I've encountered excuses such as the buckets being too dense, electromagnetic interference, bad weather... Take your pick, its probably been the stated reason for what has invariably been an epic fail. It is of course not possible to prove absolutely that dowsing doesn't work. But repeated testing can show that further attempts to excuse continued failure to work are getting towards being a waste of time; you want all of these reasons analysed? Then do so, but don't forget that you also have to objectively demonstrate that it does work. |
||||||
| jema |
What is telling is that dowsing is not portrayed as something where the dowser needs to get extremely lucky to get a result. It is portrayed as something that does work quite easily.
As such it stands to reason that some dowser somewhere when given the chance to design a test favourable to them, should be able to show a result. The JREF goes out of its way to make the test conditions what the person trying the test wants to have. The only caveats being basic ones to stop cheating. On the other hand when you look at why people might think their dowsing works, then you can come up with all sorts of reasons, not least water does not miraculously only appear underground on one spot! Dig a hole deep enough and you will find water, look under floorboards in an old house and you will probably see a pipe if you are looking in any vaguely sensible place. Get told that's undoubedly where the pipe lies, but don't dig to prove it and you are left with a warm feeling about success without it necessarily being so. |
||||||
| Hairyloon |
Of course it is if you keep repeating the same experiment over and over.
I think the first step is a scientific analysis of it working in the field... or not working. Nobody has given me a working definition of "dowsing". I think "finding water with a magik stick" is a bit woolly. |
||||||
| cab |
So how do you choose to modify the test to give a chance of a positive result? Bear in mind that invariably the dowsers tested by JREF have been very happy with this experimental design. One might assume that if this shouldn't work, you'd not have a steady stream of dowsers convinced that it must. |
||||||
| cassy |
[head above parapet]
I'm from a science background and IMHO there is no reason for it to work but in my experience something does appear to happen. We have dowsed springs on our land and followed a 'track' up a hill side. We couldn't detect flowing surface water though. We have experimented (non-scientifically) by asking other people to cover the same piece of ground we have covered previously and they have had a reaction in the same location. I wonder if it hasn't got more to do with geology and magnetic field as has already been suggested. My Dad has also used it to find lead water pipes though, so that blows the magnetic field theory. In any case, in order to isolate whatever may be causing the effect, trials ought to be over actual pieces of ground which have been surveyed by other means. The dowser could be blind folded and obviously shouldn't know the location they are taken to. Perhaps development sites where the surface soil (and so any clues) has been removed would be best. IMHO trials with buckets or hose pipes does not accurately replicate the conditions in the field. Having said all that, I don't know what is actually going on, only that a reaction takes place. It's always fun to show someone how to do it and watch their faces when the sticks move. Perhaps we're all just conning ourselves. It doesn't matter either way to me personally, as I'll continue use it at home to try to find out where water might be rising or where there is a change in the underlying rocks. The results I have had in the past are enough to convince me that it's worth a go. I wouldn't expect anyone else to accept this anecdotal evidence though. If anyone wants to have a go, bent coat hangars will do. You could use any piece of ground and see if you can get the rods to move (without using your muscles obviously). Then get someone else (who didn't watch what you did) to cover the same ground and see what results they get. Sorry MJ, don't know the answer to your questions.
[/head above parapet] Load of old tosh. |
||||||
| jema |
That raises the more interesting and debatable question, not whether dowsing works? but whether dowsing is useful?
Are people who profess to dowse any better at finding things, than an expert or random individual going over the same ground. |
||||||
| cassy |
No idea, but the people I have shown how to hold the rods and who have never done it before, get as good a 'result' as I do. Have you ever had a go with some coat hangers yourself jema? |
||||||
| cab |
I can't speak for jema, but I have, and I've watched others trying for the first time too. I found that observing how suggestible people are is sadly depressing. |
||||||
| Hairyloon |
Or whether dowsing is useful, even if it doesn't work?
|
||||||
| jema |
Only as a kid, and I can't recall being impressed then. In practical terms you can't pick up a couple of coat hangers and go that many places where any really tangible would occur. I know where the pipes run! |
||||||
| Behemoth |
My empirical research extends to one attempt when I identified the course of my mate's gas pipe of which I had no prior knowledge. I failed to find anything else despite crossing the water, electric, cable TV supplies and several drain. Just the gas pipe. I obviously have a gaseous resonance and lack magnetism. | ||||||
| cassy |
Yes, that's a good point! If people want to try it, what about a friend's house or garden or anywhere outdoors really, where you don't know what going on under the ground? Local park? You could see if people get the same reaction in the same spot, without having watched each other. |
||||||
| cassy |
That's interesting. What steps do you suggest I should take to avoid influencing people? The way it happened last time, our friend walked over a piece of ground (approx 50m2) we had covered the previous day. We had not marked the ground but myself and OH had remembered the spot. Not very scientific, I know ; we were not intending to do a trial. We did not say what we had found until after the friend was finished but both of us agreed he had 'found' the same spot.
I suppose we should have photographed the area with markings for each person, to be more precise and prevent us remembering wrongly. Any other suggestions, please, that can be carried out at home? Don't think I have the time at the moment for a double blind trial, but next time I let someone use my rods, I would like to make sure I am not influencing them. |
||||||
| cassy |
Cab, would you be willing / able to design a double blind trial that could be carried out on the actual ground, at Downsizer meets? The trial would see if participants could identify the same spot of ground. It would not be a trial to determine what, if anything, was being identified. That's phase two.
Obviously, the meet location would be known to participants, but only the site owner would know the actual chosen area and they might be able to choose an area which they have little knowledge of themselves. The site owner would then carry out the trial, record the results (photographs?) and report the finding back here. Anyone could take part, but only one at a time. It would have to be away from the main meeting area, a large enough area to 'find' something but quick enough to carry out a meaningful trial, for anyone who wants a go, without disrupting the meet. Obviously the ground could not be prepared to remove surface features, but that could be taken into account. What do you think? |
||||||
| cab |
I'll put some thought into how to devise such a trial. |
||||||
| jema |
Quite problematic I would have thought.
Is the x marks the spot place, the place where most people stumble a little and so their wires cross? I have seen magic shows that rely on the fact that even without prompting most people group themselves in very similar ways. Of course these are the very types of factors that make dowsing seem real. |
||||||
| cab |
Yep, thats why I'd have to apply a little noggin to how best to devisea double blind trial to be conducted actually in a field. |
||||||
| jema |
For that though you need to have something for people to find, the premise suggested though struck me as "will clustering take place" and that is probably statistically inevitable.e | ||||||
| cab |
Possibly, yes. Hence not immediately suggesting a relatively simple double blind trial, possibly with the subjects blindfolded, simply looking at clustering. Analysis of such data is painful at the best of times anyway. |
||||||
| bagpuss |
Have they even done a real test where in a natural environment where water is know it exist but no dowsers have already been.
This is how they test some computational methods in protein structure. They convince some people not to release their xray crystalography structures publically but instead give the proteins as a challenge to the predictiors then they can compare the predictions to the truth Then it would be more difficult to challenge the result for not being a proper test. Can I just add that theory in science frequently doesn't mean unproven, that is what a hypothesis is. Theory generally means a substantiated collection of hypothesis. Otherwise there wouldn't be theories of gravity or electromagnetism both of which are somewhat indisputable |
||||||
| cab |
Not that I've encountered. But that wouldn't necessarily help (see jemas comments). |
||||||
| cassy |
There are going to be flaws in any small scale trial carried out by lay-persons, but as long as the flaws are acknowledged, they can be eliminated in subsequent trials.
At least it would be a start and would let people have a go at dowsing (if they want to) and make up their own minds about it, in an environment where no-one is trying to influence them or con them out. I look forward seeing what you come up with cab. 
|
||||||
| cab |
If its worth doing at all it has to be done well. No point in such an excercise otherwise. I wonder... I have an idea, but it needs a bit of ironing out. |
||||||
| jema |
I will be interests to see what you come up with.
It seems to me to be very hard to come up with something that would not show a positive result, which probably explains a lot! |
||||||
| dpack |
the identify gender by pendulum experiment is easier to set up as a double blind trial
put ten critters in boxes ,next official shuffles em and labels 1 to 10 each subject tries each critter and official 3 records the results .then sort out each critter's gender and box number and compare the results with chance use critters that would be hard to tell apart without looking field dowsing has many variables and is prone to "tracking"/"path of unconsious choice"problems ,i recon i could find the coin or whatever by looking at the trail left placing it |
||||||
| Gervase |
Very true; I suspect an awful lot of dowsing 'positives' are down to an ideomotor effect and are actually an unconscious act of wish fulfilment based on slight but definitely non-paranormal clues | ||||||
| Hairyloon |
But does that mean that it does not work? |
||||||
| jema |
Depends on the definition of "doesn't work", much like the placebo effect question. | ||||||
| cab |
Yes. |
||||||
| jema |
A little harsh, can you honestly say that if you get in a dowser to guess the best place for a well, that is if they are good at what they do, they not have a positive role? Now of course there are some very large and expensive scandals where dowsers have lead councils and other government bodies up the garden path with totally silly claims  But on the level of a guy in a field I have no evidence to say that they might not be a help.
|
||||||
| cab |
I didn't say that the individual has no positive role. I stated that in such a scenario the dowsing doesn't work. |
||||||
| Gervase |
Agreed; the dowsing is merely a bit of theatre, and who's to say that the bloke couldn't do just as well with a chicken on his head or a cucumber up his fundament rather than by merely twiddling a couple of rods (apart from the fact, of course, that he probably believes it is down to dowsing rather than his own observation, and would have to be 'conditioned' to the ways of chickens and cucumbers!).
Ultimately, though, it does come down to a keen sense of observation and some innate common sense rather than any paranormal powers. IMVHO, naturally, to avoid offending the believers among you. |
||||||
| Hairyloon |
I think it depends on the definition of "dowsing". |
||||||
| derbyshiredowser |
I used it all the time when I worked for BT a lot of the external engineers use it just as an extra tool for locating cable runs and buried joint boxes. It seems to work on a need to know basis and I think that the setup tests don't tend to work because they are of no benefit to mankind. We ran a series of dowsing surveys with Manchester University Archaeology dept in north Derbyshire and found foundations of an old hall and also an iron age ditch that we didn't know had been previously dug and confirmed. The archaeologists and geophys people were very doubtful initially but by the end of the day they were using the rods quite sucessfully. I can't see why it has to be proved as long as people arn't ripping people off with outrageous claims for money, each to their own. | ||||||
| cab |
Of course it has to be proved; if not, then any claim for payment for dowsing is outrageous. It would be like paying money for a medication that isn't proved to work, or for a drill that doesn't make holes. | ||||||
| Gervase |
Just as well that homeopathic medicines are free, eh?
|
||||||
| derbyshiredowser |
Most dowsers don't charge for their work and only do it to help people or for their own interest. There are many diffferent aspects to dowsing, professional water dowsers may charge but a lot only get paid on results and a dowser who is on the British Society of Dowsers professional register would not get much work if they did not get results. We have done many tests at our local dowsing groups and only one or two people get results better than chance I myself cannot distinguish what is in a number of sealed envelopes however when we are out on site we get results as in my previous post. At the present time dowsing is being used by more local archaeology groups and this will give proof as the dowsers reaction can be dug on and shown to exist. At the present time we are waiting for the results of a dig in Market harborough that we have dowsed and recorded. |
||||||
| cab |
If it works do the stats properly then. Prove that it works, or accept that having lots of people doing something means that some of then chance alone dictates that some of them will do better than average and some will do worse than average. One or two people getting results better than by chance in any trial is no evidence at all. And there's the problem with dowsing; I don't for an instant doubt the sincerity of what you're saying or of any dowser I've met. Like James Randi, I have respect that dowsers have a sincere belief that what they're doing works. But it matters specifically in the context of any chance of people being unintentionally misled, and in the wider context of public education and understanding basic science and mathematics, that something that is according to the best tests dowsers can themselves devise, not demonstrably effective. Walk around an archaeological site with a bent stick, a forked stick, two bits of wire, a crystal, or anything else, and you'll find something under some of the spots you pick. Walk around such a site without and you'll also find stuff. Dowsing works if the former is significantly better than the latter. Without doing a blind trial of a site with dowsers and non-dowswers, claimng that dowsing works in archaeology is hollow. |
||||||
| derbyshiredowser |
[quote="cab"]
But thats what I am saying, in tests we have done at our group we don't get results any better than chance, but it works in the field. With regards to the archaeology it works for me so I'm quite happy at that. I also have a collection of Dowsing books that go back to the 1800s with plenty of reference to the success of dowsing including the use by the armed forces to find water during the war |
||||||
| cassy |
That would be my nearest guess. Even if that is so, it would still be interesting to find out 1. if people can agree on one point or several points 2. if the points 'detected' are any interest/use to people e.g. a water source or change in rock formation 3. what is causing the reaction within the person e.g. subconscious muscle movement in wrist, conscious minor muscle movement 4. what environmental factor is the reaction in response to e.g. change in magnetic field, observation of landscape clues etc. 5. if there is an ability to 'detect' something how did this develop 6. can anyone be taught to do it and use it to help themselves in some way. If people are able to do it themselves, they would not need to pay for the services of other people who are unable to prove their claims. I'm mostly interested in points 2 and 6, but would love to see some proper work done to find out the answers to the rest, rather than mucking about with jugs and hose pipes. |
||||||
| cab |
'It works for me' is not proof. If it works in archaeology or any other area then obtaing proof in a simple, double blind trial should be relatively straight forward. Talk to JREF, there is a million dollars in it for you. |
||||||
| gz |
in dowsing you are picking up some sort of electro-magnetism.
You feel it,a sort of buzz, it isn't just the rods or pendulum moving. Some dowsers work without these tools to amplify it. Some dowsers use a different coloured disc depending on what they are looking for. Possibly as a focus? Especially with a pendulum,but also with rods, what you are doing is asking a specific question to which the answer will be "yes" or "no". If you ask too many confusing questions it will sulk for a while
The mind has to be clear and calm so the pressures of 'performing' wouldn't be helpful. (not making excuses) When you consider that modern non-invasive archaeology is using electromagnetism too, dowsing has a place there, if nothing else the kit is far cheaper! If you are using bent coat-hangers you can also use the outer barrel of biros or felt-tip pens as a handle-then you can't be accused of pointing the rods!! (although I wonder if the colours might be a useful influence?see above) I'm not worried about proving anything. I just know how it feels when it works.
|
||||||
| cab |
Regrettably 'electro magnetism' is one of those phrases often banded around in pseudo-science. Like 'quantum', 'energy', etc. The great thing about electromagnetism in its various forms is that it can be measured, and dowsers can reasily design a double blind trial around that, but they do not. As in many other pseudo-scientific disciplines we see excuses as to why it always fails when properly tested.
Some good context here: http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html |
||||||
| cab |
Even better that they work alongside dowsing. Except that they don't
http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/95/4/189 |
||||||
| gz |
possibly electromagnetism is the nearest word to describe it, as we might not have the right word yet
Quite a few processes (Blacksmithing, pottery firing) were regarded as magic/witchcraft until they were understood/disected
|
||||||
| cab |
Pottery firing is a great example. You actually don't need to know how it works to make a pot, but you can demonstrate to an observer that it does work. That pottery firing does work is a testable hypothesis. As is, say, smelting iron. If dowsing works, and the hypothesis is testable, then prove it through a real test. Its amazing that dowsers, like so many people interested in a broad range of pseudoscientific concepts, cling so tightly to things that are easily shown to work no better than chance. In itself, thats another typical property of a pseudoscience. |
||||||
| cab |
Commentary from JREF on dowsing. Anyone with an interest in the subject should most definitely read this:
http://www.randi.org/library/dowsing/ |
||||||
| Hairyloon |
That would not work, unless you can find a trial to test for dowsing ability. All you have at present are people who claim to be dowsers, and people who haven't tried dowsing.
Unless I am very much mistaken, the million dollars requires you to reproduce "paranormal" ability in the lab. Successfully proving its existence in the field, or even finding a scientific explanation for it presumably doesn't count. Another line of enquiry: how about dowsing while wearing one of those brain activity hair net things? See if there is any detectable change in brain activity when getting a successful dowse. |
||||||
| cab |
Said trials have been conducted. Again, and again, and again; see the JREF article linked to above.
Of course it counts. It doesn't have to be in a lab, as often as not the initial stages of the trials (past which no dowser has got) are performed outdoors. |
||||||
| Hairyloon |
That doesn't to my mind mean that dowsing does not work*. Clearly if a dowser is able to detect anything, it is on a subconscious level, and that subconscious detection is what triggers the ideomotor effect. (* of course, if you define dowsing as detection by <dowsing tool of choice>, then yes it does, clearly it is not the tool doing the detecting) |
||||||
| cab |
What means it doesn't work is that such tests show no improvement in detection over chance; the stats don't add up. The other thing that shows it doesn't work is that where its employed at great expense to detect bombs, people die. As in: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/763-when-antiscience-kills-dowsing-for-bombs.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/middleeast/04sensors.html?_r=1 (to our collective, national shame, those products used here are British made and sold by a British company). |
||||||
| Hairyloon |
What tests? |
||||||
| vegplot |
That's a bit of a none story isn't it? I'm not sure is shows anything useful, unless the dowser stick holder thought he could defuse the bomb with a bent piece of coat hanger wire costing $60,000. |
||||||
| wellington womble |
This is my argument for providing some sort of proof or standards for dowsers (or anything of a similar nature). I have no position on whether dowsing works or not, but lets assume for a minute that it defintiely does, and that there are lots of great genuine dowsers out there helping people - that's fantastic. But, there may also be some absolute and complete charlatans who are either charging absurd money for something they know full well doesn't work, and are putting on theatrics, or have other nefarious purposes, scuh as scouting for houses to rob, accessing vulnerable people or children or something equally unspeakable. Beleive me, they will exist. How will the real dowsers know? You can't test them, because there's no way of proving that anyone is a genuine dowser, that their particular dowsing technique works or any other standards. You can't say anyone charging money is a charlatan, because if dowsing does work, it's clearly a very useful talent and there is no reason why someone shouldn't make a reasonable living at it. It's in the interests of people who do sincerely beleive that they can dowse to prove it, if only to weed out the undesirables giving them a bad name. If you want something to be on a par with other professions you need to establish some professional standards and that means weeding out the fraudulent, the nefarious and the incompentent (but possibly well meaning) - all professions have them, and I can't see any other way of doing that than providing some testable standards and ensuring that members of the society meet them. |
||||||
| cab |
Check the assorted links I've posted, particularly the JREF ones. |
||||||
| derbyshiredowser |
Excellent, as dowsers are unable to proove dowsing works we are all a bunch of house robbing kiddy fiddlers. I think you need to relax!! |
||||||
| cab |
No, because of the refusal of dowsers to prove their craft, there are no good safeguards against charlatans. That doesn't for a moment imply that the most dowsers are anything other than sincere in what they claim, but it does leave you wide open to fraudulent claims. |
||||||
| cab |
If you replace a frequently useful system (such as using sniffer dogs) with a comletely ineffective one, but charge a lot of money for it, its an issue. Check the New York Times article. |
||||||
| jema |
http://www.petergolding.net/HTML/health_healing.html
Is scary. |
||||||
| Gervase |
Part of me feels that he's jut part of an ecosystem of the gullible, particularly when I read: "There is no charge for this Gift from God, but a discreet, sealed, opaque donation box is available for any contribution you may wish to make." Another part of me gets bloody angry at such charlatanry. |
||||||
| jema |
He will also dowse for water just by doing his pendulum over a map. I'm sorry but.... | ||||||
| wellington womble |
Of course not. That's a quite absurd twist on my argument. But a proportion will be fraudulent, incompent or of dubious intent, and competent dowsers can't currently do anything about it, because they don't know who they are. Surely it's in the interest of competent dowsers to weed out incompetent ones? So some sort of objective standards are necessary. There is no possibilty of becoming accepted as a valid method without it. For all I know dowsers could all be house robbing kiddy fiddlers. There's no evidence to contrary! I AM NOT SAYING THAT IS THE CASE (I have used the word 'proportion' which is important) I am saying that if dowsing does work, then genuine dowsers have an enormous interest in proving it, and maintaining dowsing standards. People who don't beleive it, or who 'don't know' have nothing to gain by disproving it. I can't understand why dowsers are not more practive about trials to make their skill more mainstream (and many other alternative types - I don't think this argument is restricted to dowsing by any means) |
||||||
| Gervase |
Looking at the British Society of Dowsers' Code of Ethics it would suggest that charging is not unusual:
In the "What is Dowsing" section of the site, jema's concerns are addressed directly:
So that clears that up then!
|