• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

What's the deal with Water Divining?

Carebear

will make your day
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
1,449
MBTI Type
INFP
Simple solution. Find someone who can and get them to put their hand on your back the next time you can. When I say "simple", I'm assuming that there are water-dowsers around your parts.

There aren't. It's a bit like Scotland in that respect I guess. Why keep looking for water underground when it won't stop falling on your head?
 

JivinJeffJones

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
3,702
MBTI Type
INFP
Actually, the flipside of this may be even worse. If you did try it and it did work, we'd enter into confirmation bias range. It's really hard to maintain perspective when something works, sometimes... most notably when we don't know what the chance of something working is.

That's the main reason for the controlled experiments.

Are you really confident about your sources on this controlled experiment, or on the subjects of the test? It's the first I've ever heard about these tests, so it's not like there's a town-crier standing on every street-corner issuing the challenge. Have you checked any scientific studies not published on websites devoted specifically to scepticism?

I threw that out there because another explanation could rest with the way muscles act when 'fatigued'. It may not be your ideomotor response, but it falls along similar lines, so don't get your panties in a twist.

And is that the reason you threw out this "humdinger":

Next topic of discussion: the healing power of crystals and fridge magnets. Stay tuned for unsupportable, anecdotal evidence from people who just 'know' it works. :doh:

I agree that "plausibility filters" are required, but it seems to me that the only "plausibility filter" you are willing to accept is the majority consensus of the scientific community. If that were present, I have little doubt that you would instantly concede its plausibility. Either that, or you are convinced that you have at your command the sum total of all possible knowledge of how the universe operates.

My apologies if I seem irritated -- I am. Schoolboy sarcasm + schoolboy scepticism have always irritated me.
 

Carebear

will make your day
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
1,449
MBTI Type
INFP
Not really relevant, but Derren Brown gets a guy to dowse:
YouTube - Derren Brown Dowses

(It's NLP, suggestion and other forms of manipulation as allways though. Hm.. speaking of Derren Brown: he often "gives" people power to do the things he does by putting a hand on them... maybe you could gently suggest and prod people without them realizing to "give" them the power to dowse as well? Just speculating on possible explanations.)
 

sundowning

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
251
MBTI Type
ISTP
And is that the reason you threw out this "humdinger":

No, the reason for that is that I tried being reasonable on the first page and here we are four pages later. Now I'm in it for the entertainment because a few participants can't be arsed to apply their own skepticism and would likely believe in that garbage as well. I love joking around even if *gasp* someone's feelings might get hurt.

I haven't bothered to keep track of which side of the fence you fall on, so don't take offense unless it actually does apply to you. Or unless you're an NF who dislikes anything that doesn't involve holding hands and sharing feelings, in which case, fume on baby!

I agree that "plausibility filters" are required, but it seems to me that the only "plausibility filter" you are willing to accept is the majority consensus of the scientific community.

For what reason do you believe that's a bad reason? Do you understand how scientific knowledge is collected and gained?

If that were present, I have little doubt that you would instantly concede its plausibility. Either that, or you are convinced that you have at your command the sum total of all possible knowledge of how the universe operates.

I would say base my conclusions on scientific consensus, what I understand, and what I personally experience. For things like dowsing for water which employ simple everyday devices but cannot be explained for other missing phenomena, in the absence of any scientific credibility, you tell me what I should believe. The correct answer does not involve 'because my grandpa did it', or 'because it sounds cool'.

Does it work? Unknown.
How does it work? Unknown.

Why the FUCK would I believe in it?

My apologies if I seem irritated -- I am. Schoolboy sarcasm +
schoolboy scepticism has always irritated me.

Boo fucking hoo. I'm in school to possibly one day become a scientist, and what I learn in lecture and perform in lab illustrates daily the vast uncertainty that exists in science. Nothing like learning about crystal forms and then seeing something completely different in thin-section down a microscope to shatter any illusions of complete knowledge.

But dowsing for water? This is a slam dunk, you just don't realize it.
 

JivinJeffJones

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
3,702
MBTI Type
INFP
No, the reason for that is that I tried being reasonable on the first page and here we are four pages later. Now I'm in it for the entertainment because a few participants can't be arsed to apply their own skepticism and would likely believe in that garbage as well. I love joking around even if *gasp* someone's feelings might get hurt.

So you've decided that if we who are willing to allow that water dowsing may be possible through means unknown to us haven't been convinced by your definitive rebuttal, we "would likely believe in...garbage"? As for feelings getting hurt, no fear of that. I would have to value your opinion first. I don't know you well enough for that, but what I've seen so far is not encouraging. As I mentioned explicitly, you irritated me. You didn't hurt my feelings.

Or unless you're an NF who dislikes anything that doesn't involve holding hands and sharing feelings, in which case, fume on baby!

Pfff.

For what reason do you believe that's a bad reason? Do you understand how scientific knowledge is collected and gained?

And do you realize how often the majority consensus of scientific opinion has been in error? I do understand that science is based on the observation of phenomena, something which is remarkably lacking in your case against water dowsing. Have you investigated it? Have you experimented with this? Or have you just read something you googled up which was located in a website dedicated specifically to scepticism?

I would say base my conclusions on scientific consensus, what I understand, and what I personally experience. For things like dowsing for water which employ simple everyday devices but cannot be explained for other missing phenomena, in the absence of any scientific credibility, you tell me what I should believe. The correct answer does not involve 'because my grandpa did it', or 'because it sounds cool'.


Why the FUCK would I believe in it?

I'm not gonna tell you what to believe. I'm telling you what I've heard accounts of firsthand. You're the one telling me what to believe, based on your school-level understanding of science and your extensive investigations.


Boo fucking hoo. I'm in school to possibly one day become a scientist, and what I learn in lecture and perform in lab illustrates daily the vast uncertainty that exists in science. Nothing like learning about crystal forms and then seeing something completely different in thin-section down a microscope to shatter any illusions of complete knowledge.

But dowsing for water? This is a slam dunk, you just don't realize it.

Is that all you've got? You aren't even out of school yet.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
Are you really confident about your sources on this controlled experiment, or on the subjects of the test? It's the first I've ever heard about these tests, so it's not like there's a town-crier standing on every street-corner issuing the challenge. Have you checked any scientific studies not published on websites devoted specifically to scepticism?

Yes, as I said, this wasn't something new to me. It was my first introduction to science and why it operates the way it does. I'm confident that the contest has been held dozens of times in multiple places in multiple ways with the same result. No experiment is perfect, but this is relatively straight forward - one success would put hundreds, if not thousands, of failures to rest.

Again, there is a lot of money if you can beat the odds. If you think it can be done, please do it. Not for the money, but because nothing would be cooler than learning how it is done.

If you need it expressed in terms of probability, I would rate the probability of multiple controlled experiments in different locations, along with an incentive and a time range exceeding 50 years showing something not to exist to be significantly greater than I can reasonably guess and well beyond my threshold for skepticism. As such, I wouldn't even call myself a skeptic. This information will never matter to me so I don't even concern myself with it... It was my first lesson in how to measure something properly, so it stuck with me. I've seen it in plenty of other myths but they don't stay with me. That's all - just an assertion that I would process and dismiss.
 

JivinJeffJones

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
3,702
MBTI Type
INFP
Yes, as I said, this wasn't something new to me. It was my first introduction to science and why it operates the way it does. I'm confident that the contest has been held dozens of times in multiple places in multiple ways with the same result. No experiment is perfect, but this is relatively straight forward - one success would put hundreds, if not thousands, of failures to rest.

Again, there is a lot of money if you can beat the odds. If you think it can be done, please do it. Not for the money, but because nothing would be cooler than learning how it is done.

If you need it expressed in terms of probability, I would rate the probability of multiple controlled experiments in different locations, along with an incentive and a time range exceeding 50 years showing something not to exist to be significantly greater than I can reasonably guess and well beyond my threshold for skepticism. As such, I wouldn't even call myself a skeptic. This information will never matter to me so I don't even concern myself with it... It was my first lesson in how to measure something properly, so it stuck with me. I've seen it in plenty of other myths but they don't stay with me. That's all - just an assertion that I would process and dismiss.

Noted. Personally, I'm going to hold off my final judgement (if such a thing exists) until I've had a chance to do a few experiments with my dad. I figure that actually verifying the presence of water "dowsed" is a later experiment which I will probably never have the inclination to pursue. But if he can find the same "stream" blindfolded and disoriented then that will be a pretty positive indicator to me that this is an ability worth investigating. If it works with pipes then that will make it even easier, since pipes are much more specifically located geographically.

I'll keep you informed of my progress and whatever personal experiences I may or may not have in this area.
 

sundowning

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
251
MBTI Type
ISTP
You didn't hurt my feelings.

Who cares?

And do you realize how often the majority consensus of scientific opinion has been in error?

What a poor argument. Easily countered by the millions of products of technology that rely on successful scientific principles, effectively showing that the argument works both ways. You need to get a little more specific. wildcat's ball lightening example was better, but still falls short. Dowsing itself has to be evaluated, which you have completely failed to do if indeed you are arguing for it.

I do understand that science is based on the observation of phenomena, something which is remarkably lacking in your case against water dowsing.

Oh good grief. Shall I compile pretty much every post I've made in this thread detailing observations and reasons for why water dowsing is fake? I would gladly do it if you would actually bother to read it this time around.

Have you investigated it? Have you experimented with this? Or have you just read something you googled up which was located in a website dedicated specifically to scepticism?

Do you want me to go dowse my facet? I'm willing to - I could even report back in five minutes with a short paper on it, detailing my findings. Though you could save me the trouble if you just got reasonable for a minute.

Besides, I already mentioned that my Dad is a dowser, and that my grandfather did it. I'm familiar with the concept and have seen dubious, anecdotal results that coincide with ideal probability. The most likely explanation is that there is no connection - I don't need to, and have not surfed any sites to tell me this. Unlike a lot of people, my skepticism is actually my own.

I'm not gonna tell you what to believe. I'm telling you what I've heard accounts of firsthand. You're the one telling me what to believe, based on your school-level understanding of science and your extensive investigations.

Anecdotal evidence is shit. Had you any critical thinking skills, you'd know that. I have my own anecdotal evidence, but I'm not going to introduce it because it's not going to fly - there's no point because a person can make up whatever they want on the spot.

Is that all you've got? You aren't even out of school yet.

Sloppy, sloppy thinking. Whether I am in school or out of it is irrelevent. I also know more than you and have better critical thinking skills - that's also irrelevent, but I feel like rubbing it in your face. :hi:
 

sundowning

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
251
MBTI Type
ISTP
Haha, so I decided to do some research on JJJ to see what was up. Who knows? Maybe he was a fucking Phd teaching physics at Harvard or something and was ready to slay me.

Turns out the guy is an INFP and spent his evening editing all his old posts.

Oof. Now I feel bad.

My apologies man, didn't mean to ruin your night, or detract your contribution to the board.
 

Usehername

On a mission
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
3,794
This seems really interesting. I wonder what makes it work. (Yes, so far I lean in the direction of believing.)
 

JivinJeffJones

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
3,702
MBTI Type
INFP
What a poor argument. Easily countered by the millions of products of technology that rely on successful scientific principles, effectively showing that the argument works both ways. You need to get a little more specific. wildcat's ball lightening example was better, but still falls short. Dowsing itself has to be evaluated, which you have completely failed to do if indeed you are arguing for it.

wildcat's ball lightning example was specifically demonstrating that scientists can get it wrong largely through dismissing folklore as unscientific. Which was my point exactly moron.


Oh good grief. Shall I compile pretty much every post I've made in this thread detailing observations and reasons for why water dowsing is fake? I would gladly do it if you would actually bother to read it this time around.

You can if you want, but I won't be rereading them. They weren't very convincing the first time round.

Besides, I already mentioned that my Dad is a dowser, and that my grandfather did it. I'm familiar with the concept and have seen dubious, anecdotal results that coincide with ideal probability. The most likely explanation is that there is no connection - I don't need to, and have not surfed any sites to tell me this. Unlike a lot of people, my skepticism is actually my own.

Sounds to me like you haven't tested it much at all -- just decided that it's unlikely and sounds unscientific.

Anecdotal evidence is shit. Had you any critical thinking skills, you'd know that. I have my own anecdotal evidence, but I'm not going to introduce it because it's not going to fly - there's no point because a person can make up whatever they want on the spot.

All scientific progress starts with investigating something which began as anecdotal evidence.

Sloppy, sloppy thinking. Whether I am in school or out of it is irrelevent. I also know more than you and have better critical thinking skills - that's also irrelevent, but I feel like rubbing it in your face. :hi:

I doubt that very much, but if it helps you sleep at night... Talk to me in 10ish years once you've grown up. Better yet: don't.

Haha, so I decided to do some research on JJJ to see what was up. Who knows? Maybe he was a fucking Phd teaching physics at Harvard or something and was ready to slay me.

Turns out the guy is an INFP and spent his evening editing all his old posts.

Get a life.

My apologies man, didn't mean to ruin your night, or detract your contribution to the board.

As if you could. :rolleyes:
 

Carebear

will make your day
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
1,449
MBTI Type
INFP
I agree sundowningn isn't the most diplomatic, JJJ, but you still haven't really adressed his (and PTs) main objection: That dowsers have had loads of opportunity to prove it works, but have failed to or haven't dared to. Ball lightening couldn't be tested, because nobody claimed to be able to create them, but dowsing is another matter. All they had to prove was that dowsing works statistically, which would be an easy enough task if it actually worked.

There's a million dollar waiting for any dowser who manages to show it works, ffs. Why wouldn't anyone prove it works if it's as effective as dowsers claim? It would be easy money.
 

JivinJeffJones

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
3,702
MBTI Type
INFP
I agree sundowningn isn't the most diplomatic, JJJ, but you still haven't really adressed his (and PTs) main objection: That dowsers have had loads of opportunity to prove it works, but have failed to or haven't dared to. Ball lightening couldn't be tested, because nobody claimed to be able to create them, but dowsing is another matter. All they had to prove was that dowsing works statistically, which would be an easy enough task if it actually worked.

There's a million dollar waiting for any dowser who manages to show it works, ffs. Why wouldn't anyone prove it works if it's as effective as dowsers claim? It would be easy money.

My answer to that remains the same: I don't think many dowsers are aware of this fact. I doubt they are the sort to google water dowsing and discover there's a competition. I've never heard of it before, and I'm sure something like that would stick in my memory. I don't know how or where they advertise the competition. I don't know how they select candidates. I doubt that the average dowser has any idea that a competition of this sort exists. I do know that I will be doing some basics tests along the lines mentioned in some of the links -- on myself if I can learn to dowse and feel that its a genuine experience or on my dad if I can't do it. If these tests provide positive results then I will idly consider the competition.
 

Carebear

will make your day
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
1,449
MBTI Type
INFP
Ok, fair enough. Might be you're right on that one and all the dowsers who tried the test were frauds (though I still personally think they're all deluding themselves). I'm very eager to see how the blindfold tests of your dad turn out, and if you yourself will be able to do it (and hope you focus on not letting ideomotor influence your dowsing).
 

JivinJeffJones

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
3,702
MBTI Type
INFP
Ok, fair enough. Might be you're right on that one and all the dowsers who tried the test were frauds (though I still personally think they're all deluding themselves). I'm very eager to see how the blindfold tests of your dad turn out, and if you yourself will be able to do it (and hope you focus on not letting ideomotor influence your dowsing).

Definitely will be something prominently on my mind.
 

Yogi

New member
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Messages
2
MBTI Type
ENTP
Hello All,
First I'd like to address one thing about the 1 million dollar prize for proving that dowsing works. The normal way dowsing works is to find water. Many others have expanded that meaning to include searching for whatever and the ones who made the rules for the prize have put it into that paradigm. That does not mean there is not proof that it does in fact work for finding water, specifically undergound water to be used as a well. I have seen too many times people who could do it. A good friend of mine did it when i built a new house 10 years ago. Now, as Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story.

Two years ago my area went through a drought and my well survived. Some close to where I live had theirs dry up. My friend came in to each of those I know about and found them more water. Some of it was shallow (most wells around my area tend to be less than 30 feet deep) and some wound up having to drill deeper to get to the water, in some cases more than 200 feet. But in each case they found water exactly where my friend said it would be found, whether shallow or deep, and also in each case he was within 5 feet in depth of where it would be found.
Now fast forward to this summer, our drought this year is considered extreme. Raleigh has less than 100 days of water left in their reservoirs. the water table is way way down and my well is just about empty. i know this because my shallow well pump is now cavitating and i opened up my well and measured it. So I called my friend. Unfortunately his joints are now such that he can't perfom it any longer, but he described the method of using two bent rods and told me I should try it for myself. i was pretty upset, no water, and the person I was hoping could help me couldn't, and he didn't know anyone else who could.
Being the computer geek I am I decided it was time for research, and sure enough there were many sources who claimed the bent rods would work for anyone. Just as many said it was a hoax. I thought, what the heck, what have I got to lose. So I bent me two rods and set out to find more water on my property. I have a huge yard, 4 acres, and 10 years ago my friend had found water everywhere. I was finding nothing. Thought to myself "this is bunk, I can't do it". Just about that time I took a few more steps and the rods moved. Straight in a line. I backed up and they went apart. This time I leaned them almost 25 degrees in a down angle and stepped back across the previous point. While they didn't form a straight line they turned a good 75 degrees, enough that they were fighting gravity, and I wasn't turning them. I even had my wife come and try it. It blew her away. Over the next two days I mapped out the whole stream (and it is a stream or very long pocket of water). 1000 feet long to be exact, and at places 5 feet wide, and within 20 feet of the surface. Yesterday the guy who was going to drill my well showed up. I had marked where I wanted the well dug. He pulled out two rods and said "Let me make sure you aren't making a mistake". 5 minutes later he was setting up his rig right where I had marked. He hit water at 19 feet, and it was clear clean water. After he found the bottom he hooked up his camera and ran it down the hole. He ran it a full 100 feet in both directions and could not find an end point and it was on average 5 feet wide.

Now you can dispute this all you wish, but I have proof by many witnesses that this all occured. And what's more I have water once again.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
First I'd like to address one thing about the 1 million dollar prize for proving that dowsing works. The normal way dowsing works is to find water. Many others have expanded that meaning to include searching for whatever and the ones who made the rules for the prize have put it into that paradigm.

The prize is for water primarily, although there have been similar tests done with other objects. The million dollar one in particular uses water running through evenly spaced (and marked locations) pipes, where water is turned on and off. The goal is to detect the water higher than chance.
 

Yogi

New member
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Messages
2
MBTI Type
ENTP
I'm quite familiar with the rules and the premise of the contest. I'm just not sure that what water divining's purpose is meets what what the rules lay out. I've done quite a bit of research and no one can come up with a scientific reason why it works. That in and of itself does not mean that it doesn't work or that there isn't measurable data as to why it does. 100 years ago scientists could not envision how fission worked until Currie and Einstein came along, and even with that is was quite a few years later before they actually were able to produce a viable chain reaction. Also remember that the earth was flat until 500 years ago (actually one scientist figured it out 3000 years ago but that knowledge got lost). I've seen it work too many times and now I've actually done it myself. I'm a pretty smart cookie, have a very high IQ, studied nuclear physics, and now I'm pretty much a high powered computer geek. I haven't a clue why it works nor do I care, I just know it does. To those who scoff at the idea I challenge you to build your own devining rods out of a clothes hanger (I can give you directions on how to "build" it if need be) and take this challenge. Go out and walk around your yard just saying to yourself "show me water". You can even hold the rods at say a 10 or 15 degree down angle. If you have an open mind to it there is a very good chance you'll see the rods move towards each other, with no apparent reason for doing so. My bet is there is water below the point where you're standing (if you have a well or you know where the inlet pipe to your house runs walk near those).
 

Carebear

will make your day
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
1,449
MBTI Type
INFP
I'm quite familiar with the rules and the premise of the contest. I'm just not sure that what water divining's purpose is meets what what the rules lay out.

How so? The purpose is finding running water. The rules and the premise of the contest is finding running water. Any better idea of how to scientifically measure the claims?

I've done quite a bit of research and no one can come up with a scientific reason why it works. That in and of itself does not mean that it doesn't work or that there isn't measurable data as to why it does.

The problem is that science hasn't really tried explaining it because it hasn't been proved THAT it works. As soon as anything is statistically proven to work, science tends to be all over it to explain why it works, no matter how supernatural the claim seems at first. But first it has to be proven that it works statistically. If you believe you can find water by dowsing, why not cash in the million dollars?
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
To those who scoff at the idea I challenge you to build your own devining rods out of a clothes hanger (I can give you directions on how to "build" it if need be) and take this challenge. Go out and walk around your yard just saying to yourself "show me water". You can even hold the rods at say a 10 or 15 degree down angle.

At my parents home, this'd be easy. The water table is about 2 feet down - it's a "floating island". I could find water anywhere. Where I live now, it'd be nigh impossible. There is no self-contained water and I'm well above the water table.

Therein lies the point. The test is to see if you can find water of a known quantity. It's only when the odds are known upfront, or can be discovered, that one can show that you are able to beat the odds.
 
Top