• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Challenge applications

EHocking said:
When I heard talk of ploughing over the dig site I envisioned a larger area.
Click to expand...
It's a good suggestion for the real MDC test, but impractical for small scale 'proof of concept' testing with limited resources.

One last. Has taking photos of the site, pre and post trial been discussed at all?
Click to expand...
I was certainly planning to take my camera with me to take 'before' and 'after' pictures of the walkway for later posting here. As long as I don't take pictures of people I wouldn't expect any objection, though obviously I'll ask permission first.
 
EHocking said:
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.
Click to expand...
Alas, making the second test unblinded involves revealing the location of the holes, so a formal announcement of the result of the blinded test is superfluous.
 
Pixel42 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Or he would believe they have powers similar to his own, but without the dowsing rod.
 
Hi all. Just thought I'd pop in to let you know that following the advice upthread, Milton Keynes Skeptics in the Pub have been approached and asked to help out with the preliminary test stage. Something a few of us will be more than happy to help with.

One thought on reading the ideas above is regarding how to hide where digging has been done. As an allotment gardener it occurred to me that (depending on the field in question) it would be simple & quick to run over the whole area (maybe a metre wide of the trench/walkway) with a small rotavator/tiller. This should make the whole surface area pretty uniform before the arrival of Dan.

Anyway, I'll keep an eye on this thread & if anyone (esp Pixel42) wants to contact us regarding this we can be found at wwwdotfacebook.com/groups/MK.Skeptics/ or on Twitter as @MKSkeptics.

Regards,

Bod.
 
Last edited:
I'm very excited about this test. I'm very glad that DowserDon contacted the local skeptics in the pub (and not just because I suggested it).

I think its great that grassroots skeptics can get involved like this.

Bodmass, ask if someone from your group might have permission to videotape the proceeedings. I think such a record will be useful to DowserDon, your group and skeptics and believers in the paranormal worldwide.

It can show how two different groups or individuals with opposing viewpoints can work together to get to the truth. Even though both sides expect different outcomes, both sides can be civil and pleasant. I hope it stays that way.

Like I said, this is exciting.

Good luck, all!

Ward
 
wardenclyffe said:
I'm very excited about this test. I'm very glad that DowserDon contacted the local skeptics in the pub (and not just because I suggested it).
Click to expand...
So am I, and not just because it was actually me who suggested it (post #76) :)

I'm afraid I'm don't use either facebook or twitter, Bodmass, but I'm sure we can keep in touch via this thread and/or PM.

DowserDon has emailed me to say he has successfully done an unblinded test. Because of the time it took to dig the trench he thinks the preparation should be done the day beforehand. I can understand why, but it obviously creates a few additional problems as far as the test protocol is concerned. He seems to be working on a detailed test protocol which he will presumably post here in due course.
 
Pixel42 said:
So am I, and not just because it was actually me who suggested it (post #76) :)
Click to expand...

Yes, but I agreed with the suggestion in post #116. And isn't agreeing with a good idea the same as coming up with it oneself?

My memory....

Ward
 
Here's my proposed protocol for the test on 25th March, based on DowserDon's ideas. Obviously it's his test so the final choice of protocol is his, but I hope he finds my suggestions helpful.

Materials Required

11 pieces of plywood, 10 marked with the numbers 1 to 10.

Instructions for the digging party of the kind of trench required (written by DowserDon)

Paper, pens and envelopes

A pack of cards from which the picture cards have been removed

Digging equipment

Two digital cameras

Before 24th March

1. DowserDon dowses the test area and identifies places where he gets no response. He chooses a suitable area for the walkway and lays it with the numbered plywood, and a seperate area for the unblinded test where he lays the unnumbered piece of plywood

On 24th March

2. The digging party arrive and one of them takes photos of the test site. They dig a trench as per DowserDon's instructions under the unnumbered plywood.

3. One of the digging party shuffles the pack of cards and another picks one at random from it. Having shown the others which number it is he places it in an envelope, seals it, writes his name on it and puts it in his pocket.

4. The digging party then dig a trench as per DowserDon's instructions under the piece of plywood with the corresponding number.

5. The digging party then restore the site such that there is no visual evidence of which piece of plywood has the trench underneath it by removing/hiding the evidence of digging and/or muddying the rest of the spots. When all are satisfied they take more photos of the walkway and then leave.

On 25th March

6. DowserDon and the 3 observers meet at the site at a pre-arranged time. An observer takes photos of the walkway.

7. DowserDon dowses the spot marked by the unnumbered plywood to confirm he is now getting a positive response. If he does not the test is declared void and abandoned.

8. Each observer inspects the walkway in turn whilst the others hang back, takes his best guess as to where the trench has been dug, writes the appropriate number on a piece of paper and seals it into an envelope, writes his name on the envelope and puts it in his pocket. No consultation with each other or DowserDon is allowed and they should give each other no indication which number they have chosen.

9. DowserDon walks the walkway dowsing until he is satisfied he has identified the trench. He then writes the appropriate number on a piece of paper and seals it in an envelope, writes his name on the envelope and puts it in his pocket.

10. DowserDon and his observers then phone the digging party who return to the site. All envelopes are placed in full view of all parties. An observer first opens the envelope containing the card and shows the others which spot was actually used. He then opens the envelopes of the other observers and DowserDon.

11. If anyone present feels it necessary, the plywood is removed and the location of the trench is verified.

12. One of the observers and one of the diggers posts a report of the test on this thread, incorporating their photos.

Success criteria

If DowserDon and no more than one of his 3 observers correctly identify the location of the trench the test is declared passed.

If DowserDon and at least 2 of his 3 observers correctly identify the location of the trench it is accepted that visual clues must have been left and the test is declared void.

If DowserDon does not correctly identify the location of the trench the test is declared failed.

Comments

Obviously this protocol would not be acceptable in a formal MDC test as, short of posting guards overnight, there is no way to ensure that the dowser did not return to the site before the test and sneak a look under the plywood to find out where the trench has been dug. But this test is being run purely for DowserDon's benefit, so he can discover if he really can detect a trench in a double blind test. Cheating would only result in him investing considerable time and money taking the formal test only to be publically humiliated when he proves unable to do so, so I don't think it's necessary to take the kind of stringent precautions against cheating which would be required if $1m was at stake, only those necessary to avoid inadvertant information leakage. It means that a successful result will not on its own be conclusive evidence of the effectiveness of dowsing, but (a) the low odds against chance success make it insufficient to prove that anyway and (b) it's only intended to be a step on the way to producing that evidence in the official JREF test.
 
Last edited:
It all seems very sensible. The only thing I don't really like is turning this into a two day affair. It might be necessary. I don't know how long it's going to take to do this digging and I don't know how many volunteers will...uh...volunteer.

If there's a way to make it happen all on the same day, I think it would be preferable. It removes the temptation to peek overnight (although as Pixel42 points out, there'd be no point in peeking in the long term), but more importantly, I think it's going to be difficult to get everyone together twice. It might be necessary, but it seems cumbersome.

And, of course, DowserDon and the landowner have to agree to everything, too.

Excited,
Ward
 
wardenclyffe said:
The only thing I don't really like is turning this into a two day affair. It might be necessary.
Click to expand...

It's worth bearing in mind that the JREF is very unlikely to agree to a two day test. To start with, the it's longer than any previous MDC test I'm aware of. Just taking more than a few hours has been a serious concern during previous negotiations. Secondly, and more importantly, it obviously leaves the test incredibly open to cheating. Are you going to keep a 24 hour watch on the site, everyone involved in preparing it and everyone who could potentially look at it and then communicate with the applicant? If not, then you're not preventing an easy way of cheating. And of course, if you do then clearly you have enough people to do the whole thing in less time anyway.

So while this may be OK for a local test with nothing at stake, it's probably not worth taking too seriously as a trial run for an actual prize, because I can't see anyone accepting such a protocol once money and reputations are at stake.
 
Cuddles said:
It's worth bearing in mind that the JREF is very unlikely to agree to a two day test.
Click to expand...
True, but in the real test more people/better digging equipment will be available and it should be possible to get this done in one day with appropriate safeguards. This pre-testing is really to determine whether it's worth DowserDon putting up the cost of that much more expensive exercise.

The control group of observers guessing the location of the trench will also not be necessary, as I'm sure JREF will insist on precautions like ploughing over the whole site to ensure no visual clues are left - again, something that is not practicable in a cut down 'proof of concept' test done with limited resources.
 
Maybe i have overlooked something in this thread, but how do you ensure that the trench under the plywood can't be identified simply by, well, standing or walking on the plywood? After all, there is a trench under it. The plywood could probably flex some more than at spots with no trench under it. It also would probably sound different when walking/stepping over the plywood, depending on a trench or no trench being under it.

Oh, and then, how does the part of making the whole site look "equal" after digging work? I mean, didn't he say that something like man-made "disturbances" to the ground is what is detected? So, doing something to the "untrenched" parts to make them all look the same would surely imply "man made disturbance"? Plus, didn't he also say that such disturbances also encompasses heavy pressure applied, etc? Because, that then would rule out the use of any machinery at all. Simply because any of that would give an excuse to false readings in the form of "well, turns out my dowsing is even more sensitive than thought, so basically it works, because there was indeed some disturbance".

As said, i probably have overlooked that those points were discussed already?

Greetings,

Chris
 
Christian Klippel said:
Maybe i have overlooked something in this thread, but how do you ensure that the trench under the plywood can't be identified simply by, well, standing or walking on the plywood? After all, there is a trench under it. The plywood could probably flex some more than at spots with no trench under it. It also would probably sound different when walking/stepping over the plywood, depending on a trench or no trench being under it.

Oh, and then, how does the part of making the whole site look "equal" after digging work? I mean, didn't he say that something like man-made "disturbances" to the ground is what is detected? So, doing something to the "untrenched" parts to make them all look the same would surely imply "man made disturbance"? Plus, didn't he also say that such disturbances also encompasses heavy pressure applied, etc? Because, that then would rule out the use of any machinery at all. Simply because any of that would give an excuse to false readings in the form of "well, turns out my dowsing is even more sensitive than thought, so basically it works, because there was indeed some disturbance".

As said, i probably have overlooked that those points were discussed already?

Greetings,

Chris
Click to expand...
The trench is filled back in.

DowserDon believes he is able to spot an area that has been disturbed in this manner. The observers making their guess is an added "control" to see whether there are any physical clues as to the location of the trench.
 
Pixel42 said:
The control group of observers guessing the location of the trench will also not be necessary, as I'm sure JREF will insist on precautions like ploughing over the whole site to ensure no visual clues are left
Click to expand...

I'm still unclear as what ability is being claimed. How would ploughing the field not count as disturbing the ground?
 
Christian Klippel said:
Oh, and then, how does the part of making the whole site look "equal" after digging work? I mean, didn't he say that something like man-made "disturbances" to the ground is what is detected? So, doing something to the "untrenched" parts to make them all look the same would surely imply "man made disturbance"? Plus, didn't he also say that such disturbances also encompasses heavy pressure applied, etc? Because, that then would rule out the use of any machinery at all. Simply because any of that would give an excuse to false readings in the form of "well, turns out my dowsing is even more sensitive than thought, so basically it works, because there was indeed some disturbance".
Click to expand...
My understanding is that DowserDon believes he can detect disturbances that are, and/or extend to, some distance below the ground. These disturbances can be caused by nature (e.g. by underground water) or by man (e.g. by laying pipes or building heavy structures that compress the ground to some depth). This is why I said I thought he would probably have no objection to ploughing the surface of the test site, though obviously he would need to confirm that. Bear in mind he has claimed to detect things like sewer pipes under residential properties, where some disturbance of the ground's surface will have been happening well nigh continually for many years. If that was sufficient to give him a positive reading he would be getting a positive reading from about 99% of the ground in the UK.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, however; he first needs to establish that he can detect a filled-in trench in a double blind test at all, i.e. that his perceived success rate is not due to the various confounding factors discussed in the thread. Only if he passes this test will the details of the precise protocol to be used by JREF need to be thrashed out, and the issue of doing more to disguise the actual digging spot than muddying the other spots need to be considered.
 
Last edited:
I would add one more thing if possible.

One additional piece of plywood for control. This would be placed over a spot that had been through the same clean-up (shallow plowing, whatever) that the test area had, but has had no other digging.

Then before the test DowserDon can not only verify he can get a reading on the first control piece of plywood where there has been digging, but he can also confirm that he does not get a hit on the second control plywood piece just because of the clean-up and "disguising".
 
Thanks everyone for your input regarding the design of experiments. They've been helpful.
I've constructed a crude PowerPoint presentation for you to see and criticise on
dowserdon.blogspot.com
This is a description of a self test - designed to enable me to see whether the suggested protocol needs improving. It is not a JREF test.
There is no point in me cheating as there are no prizes at this stage even if this protocol works and the whole lot will have to be staged again, without any input from me, in LA - it is not going to be cheap.
To date there will be at least two Professors there to assess whether the double blind is rigorous enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom