What's the deal with Water Divining?

[ptgatsby]

I've already said I'm open to the idea that it's an idiomotor process.

Or that it didn't jump at all - revisiting the information that exists now to form a new theory on what you felt. The analogy is more about being skeptical of what you went through.

edit: To be clear, I mean ideomotor as a method of finding water involuntarily through divining, not through a subconcious outlet to environmental clues. It is the divining through rods that is faulty, not the ability to predict where water is.

 

[Oberon]

Or that it didn't jump at all - revisiting the information that exists now to form a new theory on what you felt. The analogy is more about being skeptical of what you went through.

Personally, I'm more skeptical about you and your absolute certainty. You go at this with the the fervor of the newly converted... it's positively fanatical.

I don't trust it, gats.

 

[ptgatsby]

Personally, I'm more skeptical about you and your absolute certainty. You go at this with the the fervor of the newly converted... it's positively fanatical.

I don't trust it, gats.

Got my edit in late, just to clarify the part I'm addressing above.

The only reason I pushed this is because of the analogy used, actually. It's relatively simple to show me that divining works and many attempts have been made to show it. I'll keep waiting until someone does.

 

[Oberon]

It is the divining through rods that is faulty, not the ability to predict where water is.

Let's not get hung up on terminology. If there were a process that caused it to work, I would expect it to be a physical process, not a metaphysical one.

I wouldn't consider it any more a means of "divination" than the art of finding north with a magnet.

 

[Martoon]

Interesting thread, JJJ!

This is an interesting study on human perceptions, truth, and science.

Up until reading this, I've actually had the assumption that divining or dowsing was valid, and worked reliably. This was based purely on limited information, and never having researched it. I just assumed it was the result of some well-understood physical phenomenon that I had never gotten around to reading up on. I wasn't even aware that the scientific community discounted it, or that it "only works for some people." The fact that I was ignorant in this didn't matter, since it had no bearing on my personal sphere of existence (i.e., I don't think my life would have been any different up to this point if I had known or thought otherwise, apart from the indirect differences via the Butterfly Effect).

When I was about 16, several classmates and I had the job of digging a trench so that a broken water line could be repaired. The water line was a PVC pipe about 4 inches in diameter, buried about 5 feet underground. I believe it ran about 200 to 300 feet across a field. Someone there (probably the property owner) had a pair of "divining rods". They were L-shaped pieces of heavy wire, with the short leg about 5 inches and the long leg about 12. We all took turns "divining" at different points along the water line. You'd hold the short legs in loose fists, with the long legs pointing forward. When you walked across the water line, the rods would swing towards each other. We'd then put a stake in the ground at this point. We continued down the length of the pipe this way, taking turns, putting in a stake every 20 feet or so. We then started digging the trench in the middle, and worked outwards until we found the break in the pipe. The stakes were within a couple feet of being directly over the pipe.

It was likely this experience that left me with the assumption that divining is a valid, reliable process. After reading the info in this thread (especially the article pt linked to), I now think it's probably myth, and the "idiomotor reaction" mentioned sounds to me like a reasonable explanation.

When it comes to my own conclusions and beliefs, I'm a "fuzzy logic" kinda guy. In this particular example, I now have about 98% confidence that divining or dowsing doesn't work. But that other 2% is still there.

I agree with Oberon's comment about the "we now know" statements that are often heard. I understand that it's not really practical to always say "we now think". Since we can't ever really know anything with 100% certainty, there wouldn't be much point even having the word "know" if it has zero domain to be applied to. So it's just generally understood that the word "know" really means "pretty damn certain".

Still, I think there's a subconscious effect that happens when we use and hear the "know" verbiage. It tends to make people closed to the concept that we could conceivably be wrong, even though, as repeatedly demonstrated, we can be. I think this kind of inflexible certainty can slow scientific progress and discovery.

 

[ptgatsby]

Let's not get hung up on terminology. If there were a process that caused it to work, I would expect it to be a physical process, not a metaphysical one.

I wouldn't consider it any more a means of "divination" than the art of finding north with a magnet.

Well, I'm not going to disagree that some people might be good at finding water out in the wild... I'm not sure what is being claimed then, honestly.

I'll put it another way - I currently can accept that some people can find water using landmarks and so forth, I can accept that some people walk around with a stick in their hand as way of bringing intuitive information together (ie: the stick is a tool of the mind, just like a coin flip is to discharge responsibility of making a decision)...

What I don't currently accept is that people can actually detect water (as evidenced by the controlled trials), rod or no rod, which is the claim being made by dowsers. If they said "I'm a good outdoorsman and can predict where water should be", then ok... That's quite a leap from the start of this thread or the claims that are made.

 

[JivinJeffJones]

Interesting thread, JJJ!

Thanks! I thought so.

Personal experience

That's very interesting. I wouldn't be so quick to discount it.

It was likely this experience that left me with the assumption that divining is a valid, reliable process. After reading the info in this thread (especially the article pt linked to), I now think it's probably myth, and the "idiomotor reaction" mentioned sounds to me like a reasonable explanation.

To be honest, I think that a lot of the plausibility of the "idiomotor reaction" explanation is that the term itself sounds so scientifically verified and documented. It's a word made from latin and greek roots, after all. Let's drop the "idiomotor" and just say "moving it yourself". Which is all the word means. Not quite so plausible when said like that, I suspect.

 

[JivinJeffJones]

I wonder if there's some experiment I could do with my dad which wouldn't involve a hell of a lot of work? Maybe identifying a spot where he has "located" water, blindfolding him, spinning him around a number of times, leading him all over the place and then leading him back over the previous location?

 

[Carebear]

To be honest, I think that a lot of the plausibility of the "idiomotor reaction" explanation is that the term itself sounds so scientifically verified and documented. It's a word made from latin and greek roots, after all. Let's drop the "idiomotor" and just say "moving it yourself". Which is all the word means. Not quite so plausible when said like that, I suspect.

Tiny muscle reactions you do yourself without being aware of it.
The reaction is real. I've successfully led people to objects in a room they were thinking about without them leading me. I held them in the hand and moved the hand back and forth while they were sending me "telepathic messages" about where to move it. By noticing how they very gently resisted every move I made except in the direction which the thing was, I knew where to go. The closer they came, the more they believed, and in the end they practically forced my hand to the object, still flabberghasted that I'd been able to read their minds.

In dowsing, people are holding objects that either will move with very slight tilts of the wrists (the L shapes) or slight unflexing of the hands (a flexed object like a Y stick). If they expect water to be somewhere and they believe dowsing works, they'll unknowingly flex the muscles enough to make the rod move.

It could be that it's a physical principle we don't know yet that moves the stick, but it seems more plausible to me that it's the physical/psychological (lol, psy-phy) principle we already know, since that explains it and also explains why controlled tests never have worked. (Watch the video.)

As for sceptics, I agree they jump to conclusions far too often and discount anything they don't already know, but as PT says: If nobody can demonstrate that it works, why start figuring out how it works?

 

[JivinJeffJones]

Tiny muscle reactions you do yourself without being aware of it.
The reaction is real. I've successfully led people to objects in a room they were thinking about without them leading me. I held them in the hand and moved the hand back and forth while they were sending me "telepathic messages" about where to move it. By noticing how they very gently resisted every move I made except in the direction which the thing was, I knew where to go. The closer they came, the more they believed, and in the end they practically forced my hand to the object, still flabberghasted that I'd been able to read their minds.

In dowsing, people are holding objects that either will move with very slight tilts of the wrists (the L shapes) or slight unflexing of the hands (a flexed object like a Y stick). If they expect water to be somewhere and they believe dowsing works, they'll unknowingly flex the muscles enough to make the rod move.

From what I've heard from others (and Oberon could correct or support me here), the movement of the dowsing object is far too vigorous to be unknowingly obtained. It's actually too strong to oppose. Do you really think you couldn't oppose "idiomotor" reactions? Personally, I don't think it at all likely that so many people could fool themselves into thinking that the stick is moving when it's actually them moving it. Martoon's story, for instance. He had no idea that there was any possibility of the dowsing sticks not working. He had no idea that it wasn't a scientifically-verified practice. He wasn't given some big spiel about why it would work. He was just given the stick and told how to use it.

Personally, I think people hide a hell of a lot behind pseudo-psychological smokescreens. Can't explain it? It must be something weird the brain is doing. There's plenty of room under that carpet.

 

[wildcat]

I heard about the ball lightning from my grandmother. When she was six the ball lightning had come to her mother's house. It came in from an open door, moved around the house, and left through the open door.

I believed her. She was not into stories. It is interesting that at the same time there existed a discussion about the phenomenon in the papers. Highly respected scientists came up to the podium to say there is no such thing, it is all unscientific nonsense.

I did not know my father could water divine. My mother told me about it. She said she could not, but if my father touched her when she tried, then she could.

Which of course means that (if there is something to it) the body acts as a catalyst more than the instrument of divination.

My mother was not a teller of stories either.

I see water divining is a genuine experience for the people who succeed in the art. It may still be only an art of course. Or then not.

 

[sundowning]

It could be that it's a physical principle we don't know yet that moves the stick, but it seems more plausible to me that it's the physical/psychological (lol, psy-phy) principle we already know, since that explains it and also explains why controlled tests never have worked. (Watch the video.)

Indeed. If we were to actually sit down and try to explain a possible natural phenomenon, it would be some force completely unknown to humankind at this point. ...which is extremely unlikely given the current knowledge of physics. Can anyone explain how an underground 'stream' affects a stick in your hands but the Atlantic ocean doesn't rip NYC's skyline into the drink? ...oh gee, of course not. There is nothing about a polar molecule of H2O that can act on other elements to that degree over that distance. Brush up on your chemistry for Thor's sake.

So to those in this thread who are hiding behind fallacies and 'open minds', please recognize that an open mind isn't very useful if all manner of nonsense dribbles in and out of it. Find a plausibility filter and learn how to use it.

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.

 

[Carebear]

From what I've heard from others (and Oberon could correct or support me here), the movement of the dowsing object is far too vigorous to be unknowingly obtained. It's actually too strong to oppose. Do you really think you couldn't oppose "idiomotor" reactions? Personally, I don't think it at all likely that so many people could fool themselves into thinking that the stick is moving when it's actually them moving it. Martoon's story, for instance. He had no idea that there was any possibility of the dowsing sticks not working. He had no idea that it wasn't a scientifically-verified practice. He wasn't given some big spiel about why it would work. He was just given the stick and told how to use it.

Personally, I think people hide a hell of a lot behind pseudo-psychological smokescreens. Can't explain it? It must be something weird the brain is doing. There's plenty of room under that carpet.

No, if you wanted to, you could oppose ideomotor reactions. If however you're already holding a flexed object and it suddenly starts moving, it's hard to resist if you a) don't believe you'll be able to resist it and b) don't do it the second it starts moving, as you'll have both the flex of the stick and the gravity to fight. But then again it could also be an extreme pull from the water on the stick.

Martoons story could be confirmation bias or a rather obviously placed pipe (if any signs above ground told of it's placement at point A and B and one assumed that it was straight. Or he could have been lucky. Or it really worked. The point is that all I've ever heard is anecdotes in it's favour, while all objective tests have failed. Anecdotes also clearly tell that horoscopes work, angels walk amongst us, aliens love shoving things up people's rectums, healing cures cancer etc, but it's never been proven.

Therefore I personally think it's a psychological thing that happens with dowsing, but I'll never know unless I one day see a controlled experiment that proves it works. And I think that's an ok attitude to have towards things that are claimed to work, but which can't be statistically shown to work, like homeopathy, echinaea, psychics etc.
Would I try a dowser if I needed to drill a hole and really couldn't find water on my own? Yes, probably, because I'm curious. Would I have any hopes of it working? Not really, but I'd love it if it did.

Edit: Ok, dist... sundowning said it better.

 

[sundowning]

I used to do this when I was a kid:

Stand in a doorway, and push your arms out away from your body, against the frame. Hold it for a minute, then relax your arms.

Congrats - you just dowsed the walls of your house.*

*When looking to buy real estate, check the classifieds instead.

 

[JivinJeffJones]

Would I try a dowser if I needed to drill a hole and really couldn't find water on my own? Yes, probably, because I'm curious. Would I have any hopes of it working? Not really, but I'd love it if it did.

Would you try it yourself?

 

[JivinJeffJones]

I used to do this when I was a kid:

Stand in a doorway, and push your arms out away from your body, against the frame. Hold it for a minute, then relax your arms.

Congrats - you just dowsed the walls of your house.*

I'm pretty sure that that's the result of a totally different phenomenon. When attempting to be facetious, please make sure that you're also funny. Otherwise it doesn't work.

 

[Carebear]

Would you try it yourself?

Absolutely, I'll test anything I'm not 100% certain about.

The problem is though, that if I didn't believe and it didn't work, I'd just "not have the knack for it". It's something that's hopeless to disprove, but should be easy to prove works. It's still not been proved though. So yes, I'd try it, but I don't think it'd work.

 

[ptgatsby]

Absolutely, I'll test anything I'm not 100% certain about.

The problem is though, that if I didn't believe and it didn't work, I'd just "not have the knack for it". It's something that's hopeless to disprove, but should be easy to prove works. It's still not been proved though. So yes, I'd try it, but I don't think it'd work.

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.

 

[sundowning]

I'm pretty sure that that's the result of a totally different phenomenon. When attempting to be facetious, please make sure that you're also funny. Otherwise it doesn't work.

Then our senses of humour are clearly at odds. Prepare to die a horrible death.

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.

 

[JivinJeffJones]

Absolutely, I'll test anything I'm not 100% certain about.

The problem is though, that if I didn't believe and it didn't work, I'd just "not have the knack for it". It's something that's hopeless to disprove, but should be easy to prove works. It's still not been proved though. So yes, I'd try it, but I don't think it'd work.

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.