Challenge applications

[Pixel42]

Isn't that a question of digging in all spots, but only leaving targets in some?

AIUI it's the fact that the ground is disturbed in some way that DowserDon thinks he is detecting. So any digging, even if nothing is then left in the hole, risks giving him a false positive.

ETA a quote from DowserDon:

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.

 

[EHocking]

DowserDon has emailed me to say he has arranged a test for March 25th. The location is about a two hour drive from where I live, so I should be able to attend. He proposes to use a single walkway with ten possible dowsing spots and a single trench, which should be adequate for a "proof of concept" self test.

Um, perhaps I'm being dim, but how is this to work?

How is DowserDon going to run the unblinded part of this trial if only a single trench will be dug under a single walkway?

Or, once the unblinded check has been done, how will the blinded part of the trial be conducted with only a single (already detected) trench being dug?

I'm having to presume that I've misunderstood your post.

 

[zooterkin]

AIUI it's the fact that the ground is disturbed in some way that DowserDon thinks he is detecting. So any digging, even if nothing is then left in the hole, risks giving him a false positive.

ETA a quote from DowserDon:

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.

What are the limits of 'nature'? Moles, earthworms, rabbits? What is 'undisturbed'? How long after something has been dug up or ploughed does it become undisturbed? It seems a bit vague to me, and any reading of 'disturbance' could, for example, be counted as a hit due to the presence of worm holes, or because it turned out the field had been dug up six months ago.

 

[Old man]

The thing I noticed and has not been discussed much (perhaps because it's so obvious) is that this test protocol will be very difficult to accomplished at any reasonable cost and positively preclude cheating.

Would the acreage have to be tented to eliminate anyone of a thousand people and aircraft viewing the progress, or can that be accomplished by simply secluding the participant? How could the possibility be eliminated that someone sees the progress and transmits info to the participant?

The plywood idea is not workable, it would be too easy to see the results of the digging, I'd propose the entire acreage would need to be ploughed and smoothed over after the digging is completed ... not out of the question a simple half day job with local farming equipment.

To save on the hand digging a simple rotary post hole digger on the same farm equipment could be used ... perhaps 18" in diameter?

I agree with the above. I've been meaning to post a similar suggestion.

 

[Pixel42]

How is DowserDon going to run the unblinded part of this trial if only a single trench will be dug under a single walkway?

Or, once the unblinded check has been done, how will the blinded part of the trial be conducted with only a single (already detected) trench being dug?

I'm having to presume that I've misunderstood your post.

Either he has already done the unblinded test I urged him to do in his own back garden before setting this up and inviting observers (see post #167), or he is choosing not to bother to do one. The reasons for doing an initial unblinded test have been made abundantly clear to him, but no-one can force him to do one.

 

[Pixel42]

What are the limits of 'nature'? Moles, earthworms, rabbits? What is 'undisturbed'? How long after something has been dug up or ploughed does it become undisturbed? It seems a bit vague to me, and any reading of 'disturbance' could, for example, be counted as a hit due to the presence of worm holes, or because it turned out the field had been dug up six months ago.

I presume this is why his proposed test protocol has him dowsing the test site thoroughly beforehand and identifying an area where he gets no reaction at all as suitable for the walkway(s).

I do agree that his reasoning as to what exactly it is he's detecting when he dowses is dubious.

 

[EHocking]

Either he has already done the unblinded test I urged him to do in his own back garden before setting this up and inviting observers (see post #167), or he is choosing not to bother to do one. The reasons for doing an initial unblinded test have been made abundantly clear to him, but no-one can force him to do one.

OK. I haven't misunderstood. But I still see this particular venture as being next to pointless.

1:10?

Even if 5 trials were conducted in this manner, the expected success rate at "odds" of 1:100 chance is still 0-2, i.e, you'd need to be successful 3 out of 5 trials for the result to be outside random chance.

What can that prove except to confirm his own preconceptions?

A single attempt is fraught with many possibilities of him picking up on clues as to where the single hole was dug. Even if he picks them up subconsciously.

Perhaps a better protocol would be to dig multiple holes.

Dig first hole, plow over, place boardwalk and "dowse".
The person recording his "dowsing" would also be blinded to the location of this hole.

Then, dig a second hole and repeat the "dowsing" test.

Repeat process with a third hole.

Results of the "dowsing" is not revealed until all three trials have been completed.

With a backhoe (or post hole digger) and tiller on a small tractor, time would not necessarily be a constricting factor in attempting multiple trials along the same boardwalk.

While even this is not terribly robust in confirming an ability, it seems like a bit of an improvement on just a single trial.

 

[MRC_Hans]

AIUI it's the fact that the ground is disturbed in some way that DowserDon thinks he is detecting. So any digging, even if nothing is then left in the hole, risks giving him a false positive.

ETA a quote from DowserDon:

Ahh, he's going for non-provable. He has no idea how his ability works, but it sure as hell is defeated by any measure that keeps him from cheating. ... Familiar pattern.

Hans

 

[Pixel42]

OK. I haven't misunderstood. But I still see this particular venture as being next to pointless.

1:10?

Yes. Good enough to justify proceeding with more extensive (and costly in both materials and effort) testing if successful. If unsuccessful - if he can't even beat odds that small - then obviously he gives up any idea of investing even more money and effort, at least with this particular methodology.

How many big holes to you think you could convince someone - even your own son - to dig just so you can find out whether you're on the right track with something like this?

 

[Ron Swanson]

Yes. Good enough to justify proceeding with more extensive (and costly in both materials and effort) testing if successful. If unsuccessful - if he can't even beat odds that small - then obviously he gives up any idea of investing even more money and effort, at least with this particular methodology.

How many big holes to you think you could convince someone - even your own son - to dig just so you can find out whether you're on the right track with something like this?

I know my son is 19 years old and string as a horse ... But I doubt even an hourly wage would get him out there with a shovel

 

[steenkh]

Either he has already done the unblinded test I urged him to do in his own back garden before setting this up and inviting observers (see post #167), or he is choosing not to bother to do one. The reasons for doing an initial unblinded test have been made abundantly clear to him, but no-one can force him to do one.

Well, since this is his own private test, he can do the unblinded test afterwards. When all has been revealed, he can use his stick and see if it suddenly reacts better than before.

But of course negative vibrations from his failure during the blinded test could offset his dowsing prowess ...

 

[EHocking]

Well, since this is his own private test, he can do the unblinded test afterwards. When all has been revealed, he can use his stick and see if it suddenly reacts better than before.

But of course negative vibrations from his failure during the blinded test could offset his dowsing prowess ...

Solution?

Have him do the unblinded test after the previous trials but before the results are announced.

That way he has dowsed before the holes were dug, to show that there has not been 'local interference', and afterwards to confirm that his dowsing should work.

 

[Almo]

Solution?

Have him do the unblinded test after the previous trials but before the results are announced.

That way he has dowsed before the holes were dug, to show that there has not been 'local interference', and afterwards to confirm that his dowsing should work.

Smart. I think this would make a lot of sense.

 

[EHocking]

Yes. Good enough to justify proceeding with more extensive (and costly in both materials and effort) testing if successful. If unsuccessful - if he can't even beat odds that small - then obviously he gives up any idea of investing even more money and effort, at least with this particular methodology.

OK, but my point was that a "once off" could also swing the other way. By fluke, or by picking up other visual indicators, a single trial may merely confirm his belief.
At least with a couple of more holes attempted on the day you can show a little more than a 1 in 10 chance.

How many big holes to you think you could convince someone - even your own son - to dig just so you can find out whether you're on the right track with something like this?

Well, a "once off" success would hardly convince many - equally a "once off" failure could also be just as easily dismissed by DowserDon.

I was just wanting to put the idea out there that, since you're already in a cold Surrey(?) field with a digger and a plough, you might as well avail yourselves of the opportunity to make multiple attempts.

Whether it would help either party? I doubt it, as we've seen before with edge when SezMe indulged him in a trial where he managed something like 7/10 successes. On the face of it significant - but not according to the laws of random chance.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Well, a "once off" success would hardly convince many - equally a "once off" failure could also be just as easily dismissed by DowserDon.

I'm not sure that's true. A "once off" failure might be dismissed by DowserDon, but I think another outcome is more likely.

I do not believe that a single failure would convince him that dowsing (as a paranormal or yet-to-be-proved scientific thing) was not a real power. I think his personal experiences were convincing enough to him that it would take more than that.

I do think that a single failure would make him re-think the testing protocol. It's possible that he would simply spend a lot more money and scale the test up to the level where it would be accepted for the MDC, but he seems to have enough common sense that I think he's more likely work on other self-testing protocols until he found something he felt confident that he could reproduce under test conditions.

He could just keep going and hope to win the million, but that's an awfully expensive lottery ticket.

Ward

 

[Pixel42]

OK, but my point was that a "once off" could also swing the other way. By fluke, or by picking up other visual indicators, a single trial may merely confirm his belief.

It may - there's obviously a 10% chance of a fluke success even if we manage to successful eliminate all visual indicators. But any pre-test is better than none; remember how rare it is to convince an applicant of the need to do one at all.

I was just wanting to put the idea out there that, since you're already in a cold Surrey(?) field with a digger and a plough, you might as well avail yourselves of the opportunity to make multiple attempts.

AIUI we're going to be in his son's garden with a spade.

 

[Pixel42]

OK, but my point was that a "once off" could also swing the other way. By fluke, or by picking up other visual indicators, a single trial may merely confirm his belief.

A possible safeguard against this occured to me while I was in the bath.

The observers who stay with DowserDon whilst the trench is dug should, when they return to the test area, take their own best guess as to which spot has the trench, write it down and seal it an envelope. Without benefit of dowsing that guess will be based on any visual evidence the digging party have inadvertantly left, despite their best efforts to eliminate it. Once DowserDon has made his choice and the digging party has returned, but before they indicate which spot does have the trench, one of the digging party should open the envelopes. If others as well as DowserDon have correctly identified the trench then that would be an indication that visual clues were indeed left and the result is not reliable.

 

[EHocking]

A possible safeguard against this occured to me while I was in the bath.

The observers who stay with DowserDon whilst the trench is dug should, when they return to the test area, take their own best guess as to which spot has the trench, write it down and seal it an envelope. Without benefit of dowsing that guess will be based on any visual evidence the digging party have inadvertantly left, despite their best efforts to eliminate it. Once DowserDon has made his choice and the digging party has returned, but before they indicate which spot does have the trench, one of the digging party should open the envelopes. If others as well as DowserDon have correctly identified the trench then that would be an indication that visual clues were indeed left and the result is not reliable.

That's a very good (and simple) idea to introduce a control group.

 

[EHocking]

I'm not sure that's true. A "once off" failure might be dismissed by DowserDon, but I think another outcome is more likely.

I do not believe that a single failure would convince him that dowsing (as a paranormal or yet-to-be-proved scientific thing) was not a real power. I think his personal experiences were convincing enough to him that it would take more than that.

From experience with other dowsers here and reading of other material, you are most likely correct.

I do think that a single failure would make him re-think the testing protocol. It's possible that he would simply spend a lot more money and scale the test up to the level where it would be accepted for the MDC, but he seems to have enough common sense that I think he's more likely work on other self-testing protocols until he found something he felt confident that he could reproduce under test conditions.

Which is exactly how the MDC is run in principle. Test the actual claim. The difficulty is devising a protocol that is not cumbersome in time and effort and where the results are self-evident. Always been a tricky one to get the two parties to agree upon.

I'll give DowserDon his due, though. At least he has stuck to one claim of his abilities and one singular test target.

He could just keep going and hope to win the million, but that's an awfully expensive lottery ticket.

Ward

Ayup. It will be interesting to see what happens in the aftermath.

 

[EHocking]

It may - there's obviously a 10% chance of a fluke success even if we manage to successful eliminate all visual indicators. But any pre-test is better than none; remember how rare it is to convince an applicant of the need to do one at all.

Oh, my comments should not be read as being unconstructive - just voicing my qualms.

Certainly DowserDon appears to be approaching this in good faith.

AIUI we're going to be in his son's garden with a spade.

Ah. That rather limits things. When I heard talk of ploughing over the dig site I envisioned a larger area.

One last. Has taking photos of the site, pre and post trial been discussed at all? Or are all these "suggestions" merely complicating a rather straightforward demonstration.