Challenge applications

[Ladewig]

Here's kblood's thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=217492

Thank you. Your advice on the matter is appreciated. I will bow out of this discussion.

 

[DowserDon]

My Claim and how I developed it.

What seems apparent from the replies and side-tracks resulting from my original query is that the world of sceptics is as riven as that of Christianity with its Catholics vs. Protestants and Islam with its Sunnis vs. Shias. So my slightly different approach will not please everyone. I do not expect it to.

A little of my history:- I worked for 27 years as a research chemist for the UK Electricity Generating Board, mainly working on water problems (scale deposition, demineralisation, trouble shooting). I had a rig with a lot of water flowing around it and someone had left a bent welding rod near it. I picked it up and found it did not quite balance properly (oh no, not water divining, I thought. I’m supposed to be a scientist). At home I bent two rods and walked over the known route of my sewer and found that the rods swung as I crossed its line – ah, water, I thought (plus a few expletives).
I walked around my house and found that the rods crossed elsewhere. This turned out to be the line of my underground electricity and gas supplies. I rationalised this by remembering that most underground services are bedded on sand and gravel, so water could be seeping along the service routes.

My wife attended a conference on the coast and having got bored with reading whilst waiting for her, I remembered that the rods were still in my car. I went for a walk along the cliffs and found two areas of very strong response – probably the remains of service ducts to wartime gun sites, I thought. The next day I walked the same route but at coast level. The rods were not influenced by the sea water but on looking up I found that there were waterfalls coming out of the cliffs where I had walked the day before. Oh dear, more links to water divining.

I visited a local park where there were two lakes, joined by a stream over which was a bridge. Standing on the bridge produced no response from my rods – so the effect was not from flowing water after all? I was perplexed.

I heard of Randi’s $1million challenge and, at that time read that he was moving trucks of water or soil on tracks at ground level whilst the dowser under test was on the floor above. I decided that I could not possibly pass that test, so forgot about the Challenge for many years. During that time I taught many friends including scientists how to dowse. I did not consider the ability to dowse particularly unusual although inexplicable. Later I heard that Randi was using copper pipes, some with water flowing others not and again decided that I would not pass that test either as I would detect the soil disturbed where all of the pipes were buried.

I was given a link to Randi’s YouTube video where he had a dowser on stage who claimed that he could detect an ore with dowsing rods. The ore was in plastic bottles beneath upturned buckets. My reaction was “what a poor simulation” of the conditions under which the dowser would normally operate (presumably a mine underground). I was annoyed. On following links I found that Randi had used the same test for testing water dowsers. I was even more annoyed. Dowsing is not a spectator sport. It is not a theatrical entertainment. It cannot be tested on a theatre stage. However, as I did not understand what mechanism drove dowsing to work I could not suggest a different test.

One property I dowsed for my son who was considering buying a house to live in produced a strange pattern of responses. I detected the route of the water supply but then detected a square of about 7 metres per side. Inexplicable until old plans of the area showed that the building had been a school with a buried air raid shelter. So perhaps I could detect the difference between soil and concrete or was the concrete covered in water. I was still mystified.

I attended a meeting of about 60 dowsers (strange lot – I did not join their society) and visited a site of archaeological interest. The site was divided up into small walkways that dowsers could traverse. They detected the hidden outline of the medieval church and this was confirmed by reference to documents deposited with the Archaeological Department of the local University. Personally I was able to detect the outline of a hut (minus the doorway) in the corner of the field. So perhaps a heavy building compresses the soil so much that its location can be discerned many years after. I did not subscribe to the idea that the “spirit” of the church lived on.

Finally in 2009 I thought of a more realistic testing protocol and submitted it to JREF. This was accepted in an e-mail acknowledgement of 22 April 2009. I waited for a date to be arranged and waited. I’d been told it would take a long time to find someone to assess me. In May 2011 I contacted JREF again when Banachek advised me that there was no trace of my application despite my copying him the acceptance e-mails. I was advised to apply again. That was acknowledged on 12th July 2011. Quite quickly Prof French was appointed to be my UK assessor (a Professor of Psychology). That was in September 2011. He drew my attention to this link, at YouTube /watch?v=i4MPz8h9gYY. This is a good example of what I consider to be a poor simulation of dowsing in the field. I admit that no dowser was forced to take the test but like me earlier, I assume they could not think of a better test.

Because I am responsible for the costs I have honed my suggested protocol to simplify it and make it more affordable whilst keeping to the claim that was accepted by Banachek that, by using bent metal rods I am able to detect the interface between undisturbed soil and that disturbed by man or nature. Nature will disturb soil as it flows beneath ground. Man may disturb soil by digging a trench and backfilling or by placing heavy weights upon it.

My suggestion for a testing protocol is that a suitable area of land be identified which I will crisscross with my dowsing rods to ensure that no land drains or service supplies, natural faults or watercourses are hidden beneath. This will be viewed by my assessor. We will agree the position for four or more walkways, each 2.4 metres across to be marked out. We will depart and an assistant to the assessor will throw dice to select four or more numbers. These will be used by the assistant to instruct volunteer diggers where to dig one hole per walkway. The location of each hole will be measured by GPS and photographed. Each hole will be around 1 metre across and around 1 metre deep. A length of ceramic land drain will be dropped at the bottom of each hole and a wetted layer of gravel and sand will be used to cover this pipe. Excavated soil will be used to backfill the trench. It will be rammed flat. The excavation will be hidden beneath a piece of stout exterior grade plywood, numbered according to the dice throw. The walkway will be completed by laying abutted sheets of plywood, numbered 1 to 6. The area will be cleared of all signs of work that could lead to their being any visual clues of where the trenches were made. The walkways will be at least two metres from each other. The possibility of identifying all four trenches hidden in the four walkways is over a million to one against doing it by chance. I would expect to identify all four. This is a far better simulation of the field conditions experienced by dowsers. It may not be perfect but it is a step in the right direction to examining the process of dowsing. The assessor and I, having been excluded from all experimental design and construction would then visit the site and only after I’ve made my results known would the assessor open the envelope provided off site by his assistant. This is the double blind part of the experimental construction. The correlation between my findings and his instructions would be announced. The GPS readings and photographs would be provided as back up.

I still do not know the motive force behind dowsing. It is still paranormal but not, I’m sure, supernatural. I suspect it might be an autonomic motor effect, like hair standing on end when near a strong electric field or pupils dilating when exposed to strong light, not under cognitive control but certainly an effect that could be studied further. This simulation would not exclude smell as being the motive force (animals can smell water miles away, elephants are known to excavate for it. Who knows that we might have such a residual facility). At least the simulation would not exclude it as the previous tests have done. Most “invisible forces” are electrical or gravitational. I would hope that my testing protocol would not exclude any unknown force but would be the gateway to its eventual identification.
I can see no link between my claims for dowsing using rods in the field and those made by people who use pendulums and maps. I can see no links between my claims and those by people who claim to diagnose disease by dowsing.

I would hope that by showing that dowsing’s paranormal status is only temporary I will assist Randi and other sceptical associations in refuting any supernatural claims being made in the future. At present each dowser could claim “my supernatural helper is better than any you’ve tested previously”. I fully support Randi’s exposure of fraudulent claims of mediums and hoaxers who will not accept examination. My claims are quite restricted and testable. I look forward to the test but first we need some land.

 

[Pixel42]

Thanks for that DowserDon, very interesting.

Your proposed test protocol seems sound at first reading. It would require rather more effort and expense than is usually deemed necessary when testing dowsing, but if that's what's required to be close enough to the field experience for you to be able to dowse whilst also ensuring mundane explanations are excluded then so be it.

Your first try at dowsing where you knew the route of the sewer sounds like a textbook example of the ideomotor effect, and all the subsequent experiences you describe can be explained by that, your years of experience at reading landscapes and confirmation bias. I'm sure you must realise this, so I'm a little puzzled as to why you think anything more is going on. Your test protocol appears to adequately exclude all these possibilities, so I can only assume that you have already tried it successfully. So may I ask again: what success rate have you achieved in dry runs of this test protocol?

ETA: Reading the protocol again clarification is needed as to how long the walkways are and hence how many possible positions there will be for the holes, and how close you will need to get to be considered a hit. At the moment I cannot see how you calculate odds of over a million to one against chance success.

 

[Ladewig]

So may I ask again: what success rate have you achieved in dry runs of this test protocol?

Yes! Please let us know, DD.

ETA: At the moment I cannot see how you calculate odds of over a million to one against chance success.

Seconded.
It seems like 1/6 raised to the fourth power which is 1 in 1296 - which are appropriate odds for the preliminary test, but are nowhere near 1 in 1,000,000.

 

[Almo]

Pixel42 is right. Looks like ideomotor effect (which doesn't mean idiot-motor, it means idea-movement) and confirmation bias to me as well. Randi himself has said that of all the paranormal people he's dealt with, the dowsers are usually the most honestly-deluded.

 

[Jim_MDP]

... I rationalised this by ...

Ah... I think I see the problem.

 

[Pixel42]

It seems like 1/6 raised to the fourth power which is 1 in 1296 - which are appropriate odds for the preliminary test, but are nowhere near 1 in 1,000,000.

It depends on how many possible positions there are under each walkway (and having a limited number of defined positions to choose from is the only way I can see to avoid disagreements over whether any point he indicates is near enough to the actual position to count as a hit).

If there are four walkways and, say, five possible positions under each then if my Maths is correct (and it's pretty rusty so it may not be) the odds of picking the right ones by chance are 1 in 625, which isn't quite enough to beat the 1:1000 odds typically specified by JREF for the preliminary test.

A sixth possible position or a fifth walkway would raise the odds sufficiently, though a cheaper and easier way of doing so would be to make the hole digging more random. For example if DowserDon knows there are four holes in total but there can be anywhere between 0 and all four of them under each individual walkway the odds against picking the right positions would be much higher, so fewer and/or shorter walkways would be needed to reach the required level of difficulty.

 

[MRC_Hans]

It depends on how many possible positions there are under each walkway (and having a limited number of defined positions to choose from is the only way I can see to avoid disagreements over whether any point he indicates is near enough to the actual position to count as a hit).

If there are four walkways and, say, five possible positions under each then if my Maths is correct (and it's pretty rusty so it may not be) the odds of picking the right ones by chance are 1 in 625, which isn't quite enough to beat the 1:1000 odds typically specified by JREF for the preliminary test.

A sixth possible position or a fifth walkway would raise the odds sufficiently, though a cheaper and easier way of doing so would be to make the hole digging more random. For example if DowserDon knows there are four holes in total but there can be anywhere between 0 and all four of them under each individual walkway the odds against picking the right positions would be much higher, so fewer and/or shorter walkways would be needed to reach the required level of difficulty.

As for position, all possible positions should be marked by a slab of plywood. The task would then be to point out the plywood slabs with water under. This makes the choice binary and the chance can be calculated. Positional precision would be unimportant.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

What seems apparent from the replies and side-tracks resulting from my original query is that the world of sceptics is as riven as that of Christianity with its Catholics vs. Protestants and Islam with its Sunnis vs. Shias. So my slightly different approach will not please everyone. I do not expect it to.

I resent your comparison. Religious differences are clashes of dogmas. In the skeptical world, we realize that we cannot agree on everything; most problems have multiple solutions, and we don't know all the answers.

A little of my history:- I worked for 27 years as a research chemist for the UK Electricity Generating Board, mainly working on water problems (scale deposition, demineralisation, trouble shooting). I had a rig with a lot of water flowing around it and someone had left a bent welding rod near it. I picked it up and found it did not quite balance properly (oh no, not water divining, I thought. I’m supposed to be a scientist).

Really? Did you often go around balancing welding rods? What is the 'proper' balance of a bent welding rod?

At home I bent two rods and walked over the known route of my sewer and found that the rods swung as I crossed its line – ah, water, I thought (plus a few expletives).

So after some random rod did not balance the way you had expected it to do (how often will a random bent rod do that?), the scientist immidiately dived int oa dowsing experiment? .. I see.

And you obtained a reaction where you knew there was to be one? Which means that what you tested might as well be your belief in dowsing.

I walked around my house and found that the rods crossed elsewhere. This turned out to be the line of my underground electricity and gas supplies. I rationalised this by remembering that most underground services are bedded on sand and gravel, so water could be seeping along the service routes.

And you are telling me you didn't know where they were? A scientist and engineer, you never before pondered where your gas and electricity supply were routed? .. I see. - How did you confirm that these were indeed the correct positions?

My wife attended a conference on the coast and having got bored with reading whilst waiting for her, I remembered that the rods were still in my car.

Oh, so the disbelieving skeptic still put the rods in his car, for later experimentation?

I went for a walk along the cliffs and found two areas of very strong response – probably the remains of service ducts to wartime gun sites, I thought.

Not much doubt in your mind about your abilities, even at this point, ehh?

The next day I walked the same route but at coast level. The rods were not influenced by the sea water

Really? Don't you find that just a little bit odd?

but on looking up I found that there were waterfalls coming out of the cliffs where I had walked the day before. Oh dear, more links to water divining.

Did you ascertain the exact positions? How?
These were not just links. At this point, you were already a firm believer. Your actions and conclusions show that.

I visited a local park where there were two lakes, joined by a stream over which was a bridge. Standing on the bridge produced no response from my rods – so the effect was not from flowing water after all? I was perplexed.

Why perplexed? I can tell you why: You were already a believer, so you did not like your belief being shaken by illogical observations like this.

I heard of Randi’s $1million challenge and, at that time read that he was moving trucks of water or soil on tracks at ground level whilst the dowser under test was on the floor above. I decided that I could not possibly pass that test, so forgot about the Challenge for many years.

Why not? You are talking about an alleged ability of unknown properties. How could you judge that this experiment protocol would not work for you?

During that time I taught many friends including scientists how to dowse. I did not consider the ability to dowse particularly unusual although inexplicable.

Well, it seems all people can "dowse".

Later I heard that Randi was using copper pipes, some with water flowing others not and again decided that I would not pass that test either as I would detect the soil disturbed where all of the pipes were buried.

Nonsense. That is the idea of using empty pipes: You may bee able to see where there are pipes, but you must detect which ones carry water.

I was given a link to Randi’s YouTube video where he had a dowser on stage who claimed that he could detect an ore with dowsing rods. The ore was in plastic bottles beneath upturned buckets. My reaction was “what a poor simulation” of the conditions under which the dowser would normally operate (presumably a mine underground). I was annoyed.

So detecting something deep underground is easier than something right under your nose? What a strange ability! And again, how can you pretend to predict how an unknown sense will react to various methodologies?

On following links I found that Randi had used the same test for testing water dowsers. I was even more annoyed. Dowsing is not a spectator sport. It is not a theatrical entertainment.

How can you be annoyed? Protocols are agreed upon, so those dowsers were apparently satisfied with the method (at least before they failed). Who are you to judge how their claim should be tested?

It cannot be tested on a theatre stage. However, as I did not understand what mechanism drove dowsing to work I could not suggest a different test.

Then how could you know which test would NOT work?

.... Well I think I know how you deemed those testing methods inappropriate: The dowsers failed. Since you already firmly believed in dowsing, you concluded that, since the tests showed negative results, there must be a fault with the tests.

One property I dowsed for my son who was considering buying a house to live in produced a strange pattern of responses. I detected the route of the water supply but then detected a square of about 7 metres per side. Inexplicable until old plans of the area showed that the building had been a school with a buried air raid shelter. So perhaps I could detect the difference between soil and concrete or was the concrete covered in water. I was still mystified.

Or perhaps the results were just random. (I'm not impressed by your finding the wateer supply. As a water engineer, you would have a very educated guess at where it should be.)

I attended a meeting of about 60 dowsers (strange lot – I did not join their society) and visited a site of archaeological interest. The site was divided up into small walkways that dowsers could traverse. They detected the hidden outline of the medieval church and this was confirmed by reference to documents deposited with the Archaeological Department of the local University. Personally I was able to detect the outline of a hut (minus the doorway) in the corner of the field. So perhaps a heavy building compresses the soil so much that its location can be discerned many years after. I did not subscribe to the idea that the “spirit” of the church lived on.

Since you are, after all, somewhat rational, can't you see that with such a density of targets (in a known archaeological site) any hits are simply the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

I admit that no dowser was forced to take the test but like me earlier, I assume they could not think of a better test.

What is your criterion for a "better test"? Since you admit you have no idea how dowsing works, how can you have an opinion of what constitures a "good test"?

Because I am responsible for the costs I have honed my suggested protocol to simplify it and make it more affordable whilst keeping to the claim that was accepted by Banachek that, by using bent metal rods I am able to detect the interface between undisturbed soil and that disturbed by man or nature. Nature will disturb soil as it flows beneath ground. Man may disturb soil by digging a trench and backfilling or by placing heavy weights upon it.

I have no important comments to your protocol.

I still do not know the motive force behind dowsing. It is still paranormal but not, I’m sure, supernatural.

What, in your opinion, distinguishes 'paranormal' and 'supernatural'?

I suspect it might be an autonomic motor effect, like hair standing on end when near a strong electric field or pupils dilating when exposed to strong light, not under cognitive control but certainly an effect that could be studied further.

Those reactions are well understood, and in accordance with the laws of physics. The rising hair is not an automotor effect, btw. And pupils are contracted in string light. ... But I get your meaning.

This simulation would not exclude smell as being the motive force (animals can smell water miles away, elephants are known to excavate for it.

SO how come you did not react to the sea or the water under the bridge? And if it is smell, what is your problem with mugs of water under upturned bucket? I do think your ideas of animal's abilities are somewhat exaggerated.

Who knows that we might have such a residual facility). At least the simulation would not exclude it as the previous tests have done.

If it was smell, it would not be paranormal, therefore the Randi test must exclude smell.

Most “invisible forces” are electrical or gravitational. I would hope that my testing protocol would not exclude any unknown force but would be the gateway to its eventual identification.

If it was electrical or gravitational, we would be able to confirm it by objective measurements: We have measuring instruments that are way more sensitive than the natural senses of ANY creature.

I can see no link between my claims for dowsing using rods in the field and those made by people who use pendulums and maps. I can see no links between my claims and those by people who claim to diagnose disease by dowsing.

Neither can I. A also se no links between your claims and those by people who claim to see the future or speak with spirits. Except that all are paranormal.

I would hope that by showing that dowsing’s paranormal status is only temporary I will assist Randi and other sceptical associations in refuting any supernatural claims being made in the future.

Nice, but all dowsers have failed so far, so don't start spending the money just yet. The fact that all dowsers have failed so far should tell you that it is possible to believe firmly in your abilities, ..... and be wrong.

My claims are quite restricted and testable. I look forward to the test but first we need some land.

And, I predict from experience, you will find it impossible to find some land that is 'clean' enough for your purpose.

... However, what keeps you from going out to find such a piece of land right now? What are you waiting for?

Hans

 

[DowserDon]

Answers to some questions.

The use of my sewer. A chemical analyst when doing an assay will commonly analyse a “Standard” solution in the same batch as the unknown, to prove that the method has not been performed in a faulty way. I knew that the sewer with water flowing in it was there and I used that knowledge to refine how slowly I had to walk across the “water” and how loosely to hold the rods. I didn’t know that the rods would move when I walked over my service trenches. Why should I expect that? As far as I had heard at that stage only water was dowsable. I was really looking for land drains to water soakaways around the house. Futher, the services were buried beneath tarmac – I’d never heard of anyone dowsing through tarmac. The sewer might have been found by an ideomotor effect but not the trenches, waterfalls and air raid shelter.

Water supply to prospective house for son. MRC Hans should never consider buying a house in the UK – the estate agents would eat him. The water supply had been diverted when the air raid shelter was put into the forecourt of the existing 19th C building. The supply had been diverted through its own land. That land had been sold separately some years ago, leaving the route for the water passing across the next property’s drive way and land.

Preliminary test. The protocol I am trying to arrange is for the preliminary test and with four lanes each with six numbered sheets of rigid plywood for me to traverse, the odds of getting all four correct are over 1000 to 1. The plywood alone will cost over £500. The experiment is scalable to the final test but, if I have been shown to successfully find all four trenches I would hope that a review of this preliminary experiment might find cheaper ways of constructing the final experiment. I could not afford the final test if it were to be 1000 times more expensive than the preliminary. So if a forum member really wants to see me put to the test, think of a way of disguising where trenches have been dug. I must not be able to see or feel with my shoed feet where the backfilled trenches are. Gravel and tarmac were considered but these might be unacceptable to the landowner unless you can find someone who is building a car park. Any suggestions?

Professor French’s protocol. As a new contributor to this forum I am not allowed to post URLs, however I hope that some of you will have looked at the YouTube video, /watch?v=i4MPz8h9gYY. There, Prof. French used three lanes of six bottles.

Ideomotor Effect. Did I find it odd that I could not detect water that I could see in the park and at the sea shore? I did then. It rather knocks the ideomotor effect, don’t you think. I was expecting a much stronger response than when dowsing through a layer of soil or tarmac. What I eventually postulate is that all dowsers, not just me, probably detect the interface between undisturbed soil and soil disturbed by man or nature (generally water). Yes, my experience is that most people can dowse using rods. Those I’ve not been able to teach include two commercial pilots – perhaps their natural response to rod movement seems to be to cancel it out and correct for it. I’ve taught a Justice of the Peace, two industrial chemists, a metallurgist and a pharmacist, biologist and telecoms engineer, their wives and many others. This is why I had no trouble in getting my application witnessed.

Science and its progress. I hope by now you can understand why I consider Randi’s experiments to be poor simulations of dowsing in the field and my suggested protocol to be a better simulation. Science is advanced by someone noting an anomaly, wondering why, suggesting ways of explaining it and then putting those ways to the test. This expands on previous knowledge. Randi and French have shown that no supernatural being helps dowsers. Randi and French have not shown that dowsing does not work because, I consider, their test simulation is too restrictive. They only test for the presence or movement of water. My suggested protocol does not exclude the presence or movement of water in soil but extends the definition of dowsing to disturbed soil interfaces.

Experimental simulation. For years all that a bridge builder had to do was to show that the design could bear enough weight. That was good enough when spans were small and the material of construction was stone. Metal bridges built to the same weight specification ran into trouble when built in windy areas – they wobbled. Now the simulation is not only how much weight it can carry but is it torsionally stable. Wind tunnel tests are vital. The simulation has been improved. Nowadays, I would expect the specification for unstable areas to include some simulation for earthquakes. Tests improve with time according to failure of earlier models.
I rather like the quotation used by Pixel42, "The correct scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause". David Attenborough.
My proposals may not be adequate but if so I hope they are not the last. Even perfection can be improved upon. You ask Rolls Royce.

Land. Prof French, on the one time I spoke to him, said that he thought a friend of his in Leicestershire had land and would be willing for it to be dug up. He promised to contact him. I am still waiting. Land is not easy to find in the UK.

Texas sharpshooter results. MRC Hans uses his imagination sometimes. What was surprising to me was the absence of false positive results. Other than the outline, font, altar and some well-defined grave areas, most of the other land was free from positive results. This was not at all a random pattern that had to be looked at hard in order to discern a pattern, the pattern was easily apparent.

Nonsense. That is the idea of using empty pipes: You may bee able to see where there are pipes, but you must detect which ones carry water. And, I predict from experience, you will find it impossible to find some land that is 'clean' enough for your purpose.
Please try to understand that JREF have accepted my claim that I dowse using rods to detect the interface between disturbed and undisturbed soil. They use “paranormal” to be “unexplained by science”, so do I. Not all paranormal observations remain explicable only by invoking the supernatural. Lightning was only explicable as a supernatural sign of disapproval by the gods until a couple of hundred years ago. Fortunately individuals have challenged this concept, thought of experiments to conduct, performed them and published. I hope to follow that route.

The ideomotor effect is alive and well in the blinkered minds of some of the contributors to this forum. If the idea is "dowsing", the motor effect is to dismiss its possible existence. I am putting my money where my mouth is and am eager to be put to the double blind test. I wonder whether MRC Hans would care to put his money forward to pay for the plywood, if I pass the preliminary test.

 

[sadhatter]

Answers to some questions.

The use of my sewer. A chemical analyst when doing an assay will commonly analyse a “Standard” solution in the same batch as the unknown, to prove that the method has not been performed in a faulty way. I knew that the sewer with water flowing in it was there and I used that knowledge to refine how slowly I had to walk across the “water” and how loosely to hold the rods. I didn’t know that the rods would move when I walked over my service trenches. Why should I expect that? As far as I had heard at that stage only water was dowsable. I was really looking for land drains to water soakaways around the house. Futher, the services were buried beneath tarmac – I’d never heard of anyone dowsing through tarmac. The sewer might have been found by an ideomotor effect but not the trenches, waterfalls and air raid shelter.

Water supply to prospective house for son. MRC Hans should never consider buying a house in the UK – the estate agents would eat him. The water supply had been diverted when the air raid shelter was put into the forecourt of the existing 19th C building. The supply had been diverted through its own land. That land had been sold separately some years ago, leaving the route for the water passing across the next property’s drive way and land.

Preliminary test. The protocol I am trying to arrange is for the preliminary test and with four lanes each with six numbered sheets of rigid plywood for me to traverse, the odds of getting all four correct are over 1000 to 1. The plywood alone will cost over £500. The experiment is scalable to the final test but, if I have been shown to successfully find all four trenches I would hope that a review of this preliminary experiment might find cheaper ways of constructing the final experiment. I could not afford the final test if it were to be 1000 times more expensive than the preliminary. So if a forum member really wants to see me put to the test, think of a way of disguising where trenches have been dug. I must not be able to see or feel with my shoed feet where the backfilled trenches are. Gravel and tarmac were considered but these might be unacceptable to the landowner unless you can find someone who is building a car park. Any suggestions?

Professor French’s protocol. As a new contributor to this forum I am not allowed to post URLs, however I hope that some of you will have looked at the YouTube video, /watch?v=i4MPz8h9gYY. There, Prof. French used three lanes of six bottles.

Ideomotor Effect. Did I find it odd that I could not detect water that I could see in the park and at the sea shore? I did then. It rather knocks the ideomotor effect, don’t you think. I was expecting a much stronger response than when dowsing through a layer of soil or tarmac. What I eventually postulate is that all dowsers, not just me, probably detect the interface between undisturbed soil and soil disturbed by man or nature (generally water). Yes, my experience is that most people can dowse using rods. Those I’ve not been able to teach include two commercial pilots – perhaps their natural response to rod movement seems to be to cancel it out and correct for it. I’ve taught a Justice of the Peace, two industrial chemists, a metallurgist and a pharmacist, biologist and telecoms engineer, their wives and many others. This is why I had no trouble in getting my application witnessed.

Science and its progress. I hope by now you can understand why I consider Randi’s experiments to be poor simulations of dowsing in the field and my suggested protocol to be a better simulation. Science is advanced by someone noting an anomaly, wondering why, suggesting ways of explaining it and then putting those ways to the test. This expands on previous knowledge. Randi and French have shown that no supernatural being helps dowsers. Randi and French have not shown that dowsing does not work because, I consider, their test simulation is too restrictive. They only test for the presence or movement of water. My suggested protocol does not exclude the presence or movement of water in soil but extends the definition of dowsing to disturbed soil interfaces.

Experimental simulation. For years all that a bridge builder had to do was to show that the design could bear enough weight. That was good enough when spans were small and the material of construction was stone. Metal bridges built to the same weight specification ran into trouble when built in windy areas – they wobbled. Now the simulation is not only how much weight it can carry but is it torsionally stable. Wind tunnel tests are vital. The simulation has been improved. Nowadays, I would expect the specification for unstable areas to include some simulation for earthquakes. Tests improve with time according to failure of earlier models.
I rather like the quotation used by Pixel42, "The correct scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause". David Attenborough.
My proposals may not be adequate but if so I hope they are not the last. Even perfection can be improved upon. You ask Rolls Royce.

Land. Prof French, on the one time I spoke to him, said that he thought a friend of his in Leicestershire had land and would be willing for it to be dug up. He promised to contact him. I am still waiting. Land is not easy to find in the UK.

Texas sharpshooter results. MRC Hans uses his imagination sometimes. What was surprising to me was the absence of false positive results. Other than the outline, font, altar and some well-defined grave areas, most of the other land was free from positive results. This was not at all a random pattern that had to be looked at hard in order to discern a pattern, the pattern was easily apparent.

Nonsense. That is the idea of using empty pipes: You may bee able to see where there are pipes, but you must detect which ones carry water. And, I predict from experience, you will find it impossible to find some land that is 'clean' enough for your purpose.
Please try to understand that JREF have accepted my claim that I dowse using rods to detect the interface between disturbed and undisturbed soil. They use “paranormal” to be “unexplained by science”, so do I. Not all paranormal observations remain explicable only by invoking the supernatural. Lightning was only explicable as a supernatural sign of disapproval by the gods until a couple of hundred years ago. Fortunately individuals have challenged this concept, thought of experiments to conduct, performed them and published. I hope to follow that route.

The ideomotor effect is alive and well in the blinkered minds of some of the contributors to this forum. If the idea is "dowsing", the motor effect is to dismiss its possible existence. I am putting my money where my mouth is and am eager to be put to the double blind test. I wonder whether MRC Hans would care to put his money forward to pay for the plywood, if I pass the preliminary test.

More rambling about how it works, no showing that it works, more of the same stuff we see all the time.

Serious question, and i apologize for the curt tone, but it is the best way i can think of to put it, to avoid another wall of text.

Why, do you not just display your superpower to folks instead of trying to convince us through stories?

We will not be convinced through your anecdotes, just go out, find someone of some importance, and show them your talent. If it is real, you should have no trouble impressing folks, and drumming up a name for yourself. This shouldn't be as hard as folks like you claim it is. Make an appointment with a lawyer, and bring your testing stuff. If it is as impressive as you claim, he should be floored. Heck, do the same with your doctor, landlord, someone at a local college, just set up any kind of appointment and bring a small scale test. They may be a little wierded out, but if you can display a superpower, no professional in their right mind is going to ignore it.

This will do one of two things.

1) If your legit , it will impress the hell out of them, and make them want to get in on what is going to be a groundbreaking scientific study.

2) If you are deluded it will make you seem crazy as hell, and this should show you that your methods of testing yourself have resulted in self delusion.

It is the ultimate put up or shut up response. Do you believe in your powers enough to spring them on someone, knowing if they are real, they will be impressed and want to be in on the ground floor of what is going to be one hell of a gravy train? If not, then you are a long way from being in a situation to apply for the challenge.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Why, do you not just display your superpower to folks instead of trying to convince us through stories?

To be fair, he seems willing to be tested, we're just waiting for the JREF to respond (based on what we are told so far).

Ward

 

[Pixel42]

Preliminary test. The protocol I am trying to arrange is for the preliminary test and with four lanes each with six numbered sheets of rigid plywood for me to traverse, the odds of getting all four correct are over 1000 to 1.

That's correct. Not over a million to one but (judging by precedent) acceptable odds for the preliminary test.

The plywood alone will cost over £500.

If cost is a concern you might want to consider the tweak to the protocol I suggested, which would reduce the amount of plywood required. I don't have any suggestions for disguising the trenches I'm afraid.

Ideomotor Effect. Did I find it odd that I could not detect water that I could see in the park and at the sea shore? I did then. It rather knocks the ideomotor effect, don’t you think.

Um, no. The ideomotor effect is controlled by your unconscious, so you shouldn't expect the rods to react exactly as they would if your conscious mind was directing them.

The fact is that all the experiences that you've described can be explained by some combination of the ideomotor effect, coincidence, confirmation bias, your ability to read the landscape, and underestimating the frequency with which hits can occur by chance. The only way you can find out whether there really is something going over and above all of those factors is to carefully exclude them all. Your proposed protocol does that, so the first thing you need to do is to try it and see what your success rate is. [ETA: you don't need the full monty, just enough of it to prove to yourself that you can do better than chance with this setup; say to beat odds of 1 in 20]. Only when you've proved to yourself that you really have this ability should you even consider trying to prove it to JREF, or indeed anyone else.

At the moment you seem to be making the mistake so many applicants make of assuming that your subjective experiences alone are adequate proof for yourself, and you just need to convince others of what you already know to be true. But the reality is that the evidence JREF require is the minimum for anyone to be able to conclude dowsing is a genuine ability, including you. At the moment you have no more reason to assume you will pass your proposed test than I do.

 

[jsfisher]

How can you be annoyed? Protocols are agreed upon, so those dowsers were apparently satisfied with the method (at least before they failed). Who are you to judge how their claim should be tested?

Not only were the testing protocols agreed to, but the dowsers all took an open pretest...and passed just fine. Dowsing only works, apparently, when the dowser already knows the answer.

 

[Ladewig]

I am putting my money where my mouth is and am eager to be put to the double blind test.

Eager, eh? Are you eager enough to try a smaller double blind test before the actual JREF preliminary test?

 

[Pixel42]

DowserDon: Here is a smaller scale version of your proposed test protocol which you could use for a dry run.

You will need enough materials for up to 6 holes, and a friend (hereafter The Digger) who's prepared to dig them. Ideally, but not essentially, you should also enlist at least two observers (contact your nearest sceptics in the pub group, I'm sure they'll be delighted to help).

You'll also need a suitable piece of waste ground. Dowse candidates and mark any spot where you get no response for several square metres. You'll need a site containing at least six such spots. Sketch a rough map of the site showing where the six spots are and make two copies of it.

1. First do an unblinded test. You should have The Digger present, so he can see exactly how you want the holes dug and refilled. Choose one of the unresponsive spots, dig and refill a hole as per your test protocol, and lay plywood over it. Dowse it again to ensure you are now getting a response. If you do not then you have not managed to reproduce whatever it is you are detecting when dowsing and must think again. If you do then you are ready to do the test.

2. On the day of the test return to the site with your materials, The Digger, and any invited observers. First check that the spot where you dug the hole earlier is still responding to your dowsing and the other undisturbed spots are not.

3. You and all but one of any observers should now leave the site whilst The Digger goes to each of the five undisturbed spots in turn and tosses a coin. If it comes down heads he digs and refills a hole and covers it with plywood, if it comes down tails he just covers the spot with plywood. He marks on his copy of the map which spots he has disturbed and which he hasn't. When he and any observer are satisfied that all five spots look and feel the same underfoot whether they have been disturbed or not they call you and leave.

4. You return to the site with any other observers and dowse the five spots, marking on your copy of the map which you think have been disturbed and which haven't.

5. You call The Digger who returns, and you compare the two maps. [ETA: you can of course dig each spot if you wish to confirm that The Digger's map is correct].

According to my rusty Maths there is a 1 in 32 chance of guessing correctly whether there is or is not a hole for all five spots - good enough to justify pursuing your application for the JREF MDC.

An even smaller scale version of this test with only, say, 3 spots would be better than nothing, but you should certainly do a dry run of some kind before investing the time and money necessary for an official, formal, test.

 

[Ladewig]

Pixel 42 is right.

I just want to emphasize two parts

3. You and all but one of any observers should now leave the site ..... they call you and leave.

No one present for the digging phase can be present for the dowsing phase.

you should certainly do a [double blind] dry run of some kind before investing the time and money necessary for an official, formal test.

 

[wardenclyffe]

The local skeptics in the pub might be able to act as a digging team. This would help prevent the necessity of hiring any special equipment for this prelim-prelim. Unfortunately, they would not be able to observe the test in person (maybe in cars from a distance?).

Ward

 

[666]

I worked for 27 years as a research chemist for the UK Electricity Generating Board...

Never heard of that. I have heard of the Central Electricity Generating Board but that hasn't existed as such for more than 20 years. Is that what you intended to say?

 

[Almo]

Doing a blinded test on yourself is important. I did a blinded test using iTunes to see if I could tell the difference between compressed music files and uncompressed music files. I couldn't. I was surprised, but when I couldn't tell which file was which because they all looked the same, I couldn't hear the difference, either.