Challenge applications

[Pixel42]

As for anecdotes. I'm sure that if I report a successful double blind test, it will still be regarded by many as anecdotal.
I may have some land made available to me in March (February in the UK is likely to be snowy).
I promise to post the results.

If, however, you have a successful double blind test recorded before independant witnesses (again I recommend your nearest sceptics in the pub group) it will be difficult for even the most cynical sceptic to dismiss it.

Just to add that I am also retired and live in the UK so, depending on how far away from me the test takes place, I might be able to come along to witness it. So you'd have confirmation from a fairly long standing member of the forum of the results when you post them.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

... 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.

Could you please stop willfully transmitting your woo to other 'scientists'.

Sorry, I'm in a ratty mood today as well!

Your protocol is over-elaborate, difficult to control and expensive / time-consuming IMHO. It is very difficult to dig and remove all traces of that soil interference - especially in the UK where it's nearly always muddy!

Your attempted explanation for what you are detecting - disturbance of soil by man (pipes etc) or water flow - has a number of potential logic holes: why are you not constantly detecting where the soil has been disturbed by tree / plant roots, insects or other creatures tunnelling (you'll be hard pushed to find an area of ground the worms haven't been through!); what about where the water has gone through soil or softer rock but is covered over with granite that is therefore undisturbed? Would you detect that?

If it's disturbed soil you detect (regardless of the above problems) couldn't we have a far simpler test where we have small containers of undisturbed soil (dug up in an intact section) and disturbed soil (similar)? You could even select the samples yourself and then check in an open test that you can still tell the difference before they are randomised.

Incidentally, your dismissal of the failure of the ideomotor effect as an explanation of other dowsers' failure to perform when tested misses the explanation already given that they try the test first in open conditions and have no trouble detecting the relevant samples (even when covered up - so long as they know where they are) thereby proving the setup is fine as a test of their abilities... and then all fail as soon as the setup (whilst exactly the same otherwise) is blinded. If you respond to this by saying all such dowsers are not 'true' dowsers, then bear in mind your ascertion that anyone can do it and it's easy to learn, as that would make any claim that they're not 'true' dowsers a mite feeble.

I also fail to understand why you won't do the simpler self-tests suggested. Your excuse that we wouldn't believe the results spectacularly misses the point that such a test is for you. It'll either allow you to hone your skills and the test protocol (which can only improve your chances of passing) or allow you to realise that you are sadly (and rather disturbingly easily) deluded. Of course if you did involve the local skeptic group that would help the above and also act as some assurance in any relaying to us that it is more than anecdote - but the main point of the test is for you.

Sadly I expect (as with most other dowsers before you), you'll either keep elaborating on the test conditions, such that it becomes (even more) impractical to run, or you will indeed be tested (great!), will fail (as have all before you) and then construct a new elaborate theory as to what it was you were actually detecting and why the test was not a fair measure of that (as, sadly, many people who fail the test do).

Of course there remains the hope that you will be true to your former profession and accept the results of a rigorous and fair test (that you will have formally agreed is rigorous and fair before you take it).

Fingers crossed!

 

[Marcus]

Fingers crossed!

DowserDon seems pretty rational, he really could be the first person to accept the results of a JREF preliminary, although I would still say the odds are against it.

The problem will be the protocol, it's complicated and will be difficult to make acceptable to both sides.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

DowserDon seems pretty rational, he really could be the first person to accept the results of a JREF preliminary, although I would still say the odds are against it.

Er he seemed extremely quick to go from 'Oooh look a bent wire' through 'Let's see if dowsing works' to 'Dowsing works...ooh except in those cases where it doesn't so let's redefine dowsing to fit' for a rational person who claims to be a scientist.

The problem will be the protocol, it's complicated and will be difficult to make acceptable to both sides.

Agreed - and fits the pattern of continually redefining a 'skill' to confound testing and / or rationalise away failure.

Then again, I'm cynic as well as skeptic and lack the patience and understanding of most on this board. I also accept my approach is probably less helpful than others' and less likely to lead a 'believer' to a rational outcome, so I'll bow out of this thread now - and keep a watching brief...

Best of luck DowserDon and here's hoping you prove me wrong!

 

[Almo]

DowserDon seems pretty rational, he really could be the first person to accept the results of a JREF preliminary, although I would still say the odds are against it.

The problem will be the protocol, it's complicated and will be difficult to make acceptable to both sides.

I thought someone accepted the prelim of the GSIC prelim test. Though that may have been a special case as I seem to rememeber the person being tested wasn't a true believer in it in the first place.

 

[DowserDon]

Thanks Pixel42. I followed your Wiki links beyond the first page (descriptions of water in pipes and trucks! and found this which is quite interesting but again a long way from soil interfaces:-

Physiol Chem Phys. 1978;10(6):525-34.
Anatomical localization of human detection of weak electromagnetic radiation: experiments with dowsers.
Harvalik ZV.
Abstract

Positive responses (dowsing signals) were evoked from 14 male "dowsers" by exposure to artificial electromagnetic (ac) fields. When the kidney area was shielded, such responses failed to occur. This suggests that magnetic sensors exist in man, probably located in the renal vicinity. Extinction of response was also observed when the head was shielded. This suggests the existence of additional magnetic sensory apparatus in the brain. Discrimination among magnetic patterns (signatures) is hypothesized to account for the apparent ability of dowsers to find specific underground substances, notably water. Such discrimination would require functional association of the sensory apparatus with a signature processor. Data are presented suggesting that this sensor-processor complex does indeed exist and may be located in the vicinity of the pineal gland.

I don't claim to know how or what activates a dowsers response but perhaps Harvalik does.

 

[Pixel42]

Thanks Pixel42. I followed your Wiki links beyond the first page

This is the first time you've read the wiki article on dowsing and followed its links? Seriously?

and found this which is quite interesting

Out of all the studies referred to in the three links I gave you, this is the one you seize on? A paper about a simple test of human sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation which, for reasons known only to the author, was done on dowsers rather than random individuals? An author who appears to have produced just four papers in a career that lasted from 1947-1978, none of which (including this one) had anything to do with testing dowsing, and whose own wiki page has been deleted (reason was 'WP:Notability + pseudoscience')?

So far I've been impressed by your articulacy and willingness to put your beliefs to the test, but I have to say my optimism that a reasonable discussion with you is possible has taken a severe hit after reading this post. Please read all three articles and their references carefully and critically, and try not to cherry pick sources which give even the slightest support for your preconceived beliefs no matter how dubious they are (it took me just a few minutes to check up on the credibility of Mr Harvalik), whilst ignoring much more plentiful and better quality evidence that those beliefs are mistaken.

 

[SkepticScott]

Anatomical localization of human detection of weak electromagnetic radiation: experiments with dowsers.

What was the control, how was the group blinded, how were the experimenters blinded, what was a "response"? Without those details (at the least), that study doesn't tell us anything. It may have been very poorly designed and not worth anything.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Incidentally, your dismissal of the failure of the ideomotor effect as an explanation of other dowsers' failure to perform when tested misses the explanation already given that they try the test first in open conditions and have no trouble detecting the relevant samples (even when covered up - so long as they know where they are) thereby proving the setup is fine as a test of their abilities... and then all fail as soon as the setup (whilst exactly the same otherwise) is blinded. If you respond to this by saying all such dowsers are not 'true' dowsers, then bear in mind your ascertion that anyone can do it and it's easy to learn, as that would make any claim that they're not 'true' dowsers a mite feeble.

I did some closer reading, and followed some links.

Am I missing something regarding the ideomotor effect? My understanding of the Wiki explanation is that "movements" of a device (such as rods) are produced by the person by muscle action that is so slight that the person is not aware that they are controlling. (Something I agree with and stated so earlier).

This allows the subconscious to over-ride the conscious intention of the person to not move the device (rods).

The source of the subconscious control is either:

a) The conscious knows what the rods should do
b) The subconscious gets information from physical senses such as smell, taste, vibration, magnetic fields, neutrino disturbance, sounds, sight and the brain analyzes these, no matter the tiny scale.
c) The subconscious gets it's information from "spirit" or a higher power.
d) Under test conditions, the person gets subtle "clues" from either the test setup, or from other persons involved in the test.

My understanding is that JREF is looking to exclude all but c) which DowserDon seems to not believe in.

But it seems that DowserDon believes he can pass the test under b) if the effects are too small to be measured by today's science.

Where am I getting confused about the various statements made in the posts?

kblood - I like your approach and understand what you are saying in the small sampling of your posts I have browsed through so far.

Open mind. Play with a pair of rods, to see how slight any movement needs to be in the unstable state. Tilt them upwards until they start to swing, and then try to keep them just below this unstable position. You may find that they swing when you too know they should. If you subconsciously wish to sabotage your own test, your subconscious may make an effort to tilt towards stability (forward). You can then get a first-hand feel rather that a second-hand explanation. If you really wish to test further, suspend your disbelief and say you can do it, and go find a water pipe. Afterward, you can go back into skeptic mode and analyse what happened (if anything).

 

[Pixel42]

The source of the subconscious control is either:

a) The conscious knows what the rods should do
b) The subconscious gets information from physical senses such as smell, taste, vibration, magnetic fields, neutrino disturbance, sounds, sight and the brain analyzes these, no matter the tiny scale.
c) The subconscious gets it's information from "spirit" or a higher power.
d) Under test conditions, the person gets subtle "clues" from either the test setup, or from other persons involved in the test.

There's also

e) the subconscious moves the rods randomly and confirmation bias/underestimating the number of hits to be expected leads the dowser to erroneously think the movement is associated with the location of whatever is being dowsed for more often than would be expected by chance.

In a previous discussion here on dowsing someone who had investigated the subject in far greater depth than I have expressed the view that (b) makes far less contribution to the perceived success of dowsing than (e). Indeed he was unconvinced that (b) made any contribution whatsoever.

My understanding is that JREF is looking to exclude all but c) which DowserDon seems to not believe in.

JREF certainly want to eliminate the use (conscious or unconscious) of any information that can be obtained with the normal senses, but their standard test wouldn't eliminate most of the things you've listed under (b). If the presence of water (or whatever else is being dowsed for) really changes things like smell, magnetic field, neutrino density etc and it's that the dowser is detecting then it would do so during the blinded test too, so the dowser should be able to get a success rate better than chance. The only sense data that's really eliminated by a standard double blind test is that obtained by sight.

 

[wardenclyffe]

But (e) does not explain why dowsing always seems to work in an open test but then fails when the test is blinded. For example, what I think is the most thorough and compelling test, the one James Randi performed in Australia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqoYrSd94kA

I'm guessing that DowserDon would get a hit (or non-hit) on each pipe exactly the same, since he does not dowse for water necessarily, but rather ground which has been disturbed in a particular way. Still for those who dowse for water or metals, this seems to be a fairly conclusive test to me.

Ward

 

[Ladewig]

The source of the subconscious control is either:

a) The conscious knows what the rods should do
b) The subconscious gets information from physical senses such as smell, taste, vibration, magnetic fields, neutrino disturbance, sounds, sight and the brain analyzes these, no matter the tiny scale.
c) The subconscious gets it's information from "spirit" or a higher power.
d) Under test conditions, the person gets subtle "clues" from either the test setup, or from other persons involved in the test.

My understanding is that JREF is looking to exclude all but c) which DowserDon seems to not believe in.

I don't understand your viewpoint here. I am not a JREF spokesperson, but I am pretty sure that JREF testers believe that if you can use only your physical senses and a coat-hanger to detect the magnetic fields associated with a bucket of water, then you deserve $1,000,000.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Also, if you go to www.http://books.google.com/ and look up the Encyclopedia Of New Age Beliefs and look at page 180 in the chapter about dowsing, you will see that Harvilik was a dowser who did map and "information dowsing" (whatever that is) and seems to be the type of guy that DowserDon generally has no use for. And this is a book that supports the idea of dowsing. The previous page lists a number of reasons that dowsing is real, but cannot be scientifically tested.

Ward

 

[Ladewig]

Disclaimer: I am not associated with JREF in any way and my criticisms of your protocol in no way change your protocol negotiations with JREF or its agents​

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.

You see - there's the problem. Holes measuring one cubic meter? Why? Why can't you perform this test with holes measuring one cubic foot? It sure would save a lot of time and money. Have you actually tried the test with holes smaller than one cubic meter? Have you actually tried the test with holes exactly one cubic meter in volume? If not why not?


Also, why do you have to buy 500 Pounds of plywood. Can't you just get six sheets and use the same sheets for each of the different walkway tests? I.e. They set up the first walkway, you select a specific location along the walkway, you leave the area and then they set up the second walkway with the same sheets from the first walkway. In fact, buying used plywood or even borrowing several sheets would be even cheaper.


ETA: I do bring this stuff up not because I am a jerk (well not only because I am a jerk) but also because a fair number of potential applicants try to save face in backing out of the formal testing by putting their noses in the air, sniffing, and disdainfully declaring "My superpowers are so delicate that the tiniest things set them off, therefore I will need a very, very expensive protocol set up for me before I can amaze you with my superpower."

 

[Pixel42]

But (e) does not explain why dowsing always seems to work in an open test but then fails when the test is blinded.

In an open test it's surely (a) that's at work. Take away the conscious knowledge by blinding and you get the same rate of success as in the field. The difference is that you can measure that rate accurately as being no better than chance, instead of allowing the usual cognitive biases/unrealistic expectations to mislead you into thinking it's higher than that.

 

[wardenclyffe]

But for all the challenges that I know of, the applicant must pay for the expenses. In this case, DowserDon seems to be aware of that and seems to be willing to spend the money. However, I, like most of you, believe that self-testing is very important. Self-testing in this instance could become very, very expensive.

That's why I think Pixel42's suggestion of finding a local skeptics in the pub group is a good idea. The younger members of the group might be convinced to do some digging and the older members of the group can be blinded to all the digging and placement of targets, but they can be there to supervise the test while the diggers are out of sight.

I think DowserDon might be amazed at how much work he can get out of a group of skeptics for the price of a few pints.

Ward

 

[wardenclyffe]

In an open test it's surely (a) that's at work. Take away the conscious knowledge by blinding and you get the same rate of success as in the field. The difference is that you can measure that rate accurately as being no better than chance, instead of allowing the usual cognitive biases/unrealistic expectations to mislead you into thinking it's higher than that.

You are correct. I should read more carefully.

Ward

 

[Ladewig]

But for all the challenges that I know of, the applicant must pay for the expenses. In this case, DowserDon seems to be aware of that and seems to be willing to spend the money.

Perhaps it is too soon for me to adopt the cynical viewpoint. To remain completely objective I should wait and see what happens. In this particular case I think I'll take my objective-skeptic cap off for a moment. Money talks and BS walks - while it is possible that our dauntless challenger is reaching for his wallet, I think it is more likely that he is tying his shoes. I will emphatically state that I could end up with more than a little egg on my face. If that is the outcome I will eat crow and admit that my rash conclusions were inappropriate and uncalled for. I will sincerely and heartily apologize.

But, I just want to take one more moment to reemphasize what you said about self-testing. That is the most important thing of all at this point. A blind test will save a lot of time, energy, and tears in the future.

 

[Marcus]

I thought someone accepted the prelim of the GSIC prelim test. Though that may have been a special case as I seem to rememeber the person being tested wasn't a true believer in it in the first place.

I don't remember that one, missed it I guess. Do you remember which superpower was being tested for?

I really thought that Connie was going to accept the results of her test, she swore up and down that she was going too, so I suppose that I should assume this one will go the same way if it goes that far.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Thanks for comments.

e) the subconscious moves the rods randomly and confirmation bias/underestimating the number of hits to be expected leads the dowser to erroneously think the movement is associated with the location of whatever is being dowsed for more often than would be expected by chance.

I did not think of this possibility because I assumed that the success rate would be so high that there would be no chance of misinterpretation of results. I agree that under (self) test conditions where there are hits and misses it could explain why some dowsers mislead themselves to think they are successful.

I don't understand your viewpoint here. I am not a JREF spokesperson, but I am pretty sure that JREF testers believe that if you can use only your physical senses and a coat-hanger to detect the magnetic fields associated with a bucket of water, then you deserve $1,000,000.

I was asking for clarification rather than expressing a viewpoint. I wrote and then deleted a comment to the effect that it might be that JREF wants to pay for a demonstration of using c) spirit (and get huge publicity income) but would have to pay for anyone who could outfox the system using b) senses.

It is possible that c) spirit works by enabling/heightening b) senses (beyond the ability of science to measure).

DowserDon - I wish you success since I think there is a 95% possibility that dowsing works (although I lean toward the psychic explanation).

You see - there's the problem. Holes measuring one cubic meter? Why? Why can't you perform this test with holes measuring one cubic foot? It sure would save a lot of time and money. Have you actually tried the test with holes smaller than one cubic meter? Have you actually tried the test with holes exactly one cubic meter in volume? If not why not?

I join those who are advising you to blind self-test, and start small. Although there are effects of scale, you need to experiment to find the needed scale.

As a child I made a crude parachute and jumped out a tree. I started on the low branches, and then made soft landings for the higher branches. The possibility occurred to me that I needed more height but I was not prepared to jump from the third floor of the apartment block because if I was wrong I would be the equivalent of road-kill.