• 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

And a tentative "Thank you and congratulations for having the courage to test your claim." to you, DowserDon.
 
This post will be a purely factual one, commentary (and photos) later.

We gathered at 11 a.m. and after coffee and buns kindly provided by DowserDon went into the garden where the test was going to take place. There were about 20 people there altogether. The weather could hardly have been better for the time of year, a bright and sunny day without much wind. Most people took photos, the later stages were also videotaped.

DowserDon first demonstrated the use of the dowsing rods in an area of the garden where he had previously got some responses, and invited anyone who wanted to also try. Several did, a couple of whom also got some responses. I tried but got no response.

DowserDon then did an unblinded test by dowsing a trench whose position was known. The reaction of his rods was very clear (they splay rather than cross for him). Several other people also tried, I was again unable to get a response.

At this point DowserDon and the couple of people present who knew where the trenches were went inside whilst the rest of us inspected the three walkways and tried to tell where each of the three trenches was. Each walkway was identified by a card suit, with ten numbered pieces of plywood and 2 additional unnumbered ones at each end. I have to say the diggers had done a very good job, I couldn't detect any obvious signs so my guesses were essentially random, based mostly on whether any of the squares of plywood felt different underfoot to the others. I eventually wrote down:

Heart trench: position 6
Club trench: position 7
Diamond trench: position 2

When everyone who wanted to had written down their own guesses, DowserDon rejoined us to dowse the three walkways. He got a good response immediately at position 3 on the heart trench, but had much more difficulty getting a reliable reading from the second, club, trench; he seemed to be getting more than one reponse, but none consistently. He went on to the diamond trench and got a clear response from position 10, but after trying the club trench again with no better response he decided to take a break, whilst more refreshments were served. He then tried the club trench once more and finally decided on position 10, though he was clearly not as confident as he was with the other two trenches. So his final choices were:

Heart trench: position 3
Club trench: position 10
Diamond trench: position 10

The people who had been present when the trenches were dug then joined us and the envelope which contained the cards that had been drawn to instruct the diggers where to dig was unsealed. The actual positions were:

Heart trench: position 7
Club trench: position 8
Diamond trench: position 4

Of those who had made their own guesses only one had correctly guessed the position of a single trench.
 
Thanks for the prompt info. I'm looking forward to hearing more.

I applaud DowserDon for doing this kind of self-test that virtually no other MDC applicant ever does.

Despite the outcome for DowserDon, it sounds like it was a pleasant way for everyone to spend a spring day in England. I wish I could have been there.

Thanks again,
Ward
 
wardenclyffe said:
Thanks for the prompt info. I'm looking forward to hearing more.

I applaud DowserDon for doing this kind of self-test that virtually no other MDC applicant ever does.

Despite the outcome for DowserDon, it sounds like it was a pleasant way for everyone to spend a spring day in England. I wish I could have been there.

Thanks again,
Ward
Click to expand...

Was this a self test? I thought this was a preliminary trial on behalf of the JREF, which is why Chris French was there.
 
I'm pretty sure Chris French was there just as an interested observer. No JREF representative was involved in setting up or blinding the test as far as I know.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Ward
 
It was a self test. AIUI Chris French was there principally to assess the acceptability of the test protocol for a formal JREF test.

DowserDon demonstrates the use of the dowsing rods:

Dowsing011.jpg


Chris French tries the dowsing rods:

Dowsing013.jpg


The heart trench:

Dowsing017.jpg


The unblinded trench: DowserDon gets a response

Dowsing015.jpg


The unblinded trench: Chris French doesn't get a response

Dowsing018.jpg


DewserDon dowsing the club trench.

Dowsing022.jpg
 
I'd like to join in the group saying thanks to DowserDon for taking the time (and apparently spending a fair bit of his own money!) to set up and take this test.

And thanks to Pixel42 and others who spent their time to help establish the test and then to go and participate and report back.

Any word yet from DowserDon on why he thinks he failed the test?
 
JimOfAllTrades said:
Any word yet from DowserDon on why he thinks he failed the test?
Click to expand...
Within minutes of failing the test he said to me that he should have tried different materials to cover the trenches, because perhaps damp plywood was masking the signal. I pointed out that in that case he wouldn't have got a response in the unblinded test either, which he seemed to accept. Later he said that everyone who designs experiments has to accept that sometimes they fail, again implying that the design of the test must be at fault because it hadn't given the "right" result. The possibility that the test was fine and had reliably confirmed what decades of previous testing had already established was not one he seemed prepared to consider. His final comments as we were leaving were that he would let the trenches "age" for say six months and then see if he could detect them - again ignoring the fact that he was able to detect the brand new trench in the unblinded test without difficulty, and also that as he now knows where the trenches are any later testing will be unblinded and therefore worthless.
 
DowserDon's reaction (as described by Pixel42) is not surprising. I did not expect a single failed test to shake his beliefs that are based on personal experience. If my personal experiences had been as compelling as he says his were, I doubt a single failure on my part would alter my beliefs, either.

However, it has probably altered his belief that this was an effective way to test his abilites. With any luck, he'll come up with a different, less complex and less expensive way to test himself.

Again, kudos to DowserDon for putting forth the time, effort and expense to perform this self-test and for opening it up to skeptics to watch.

And thanks, Pixel42 for your reports and photos. Was anyone else from the forum there?

Ward
 
Kudos to all that helped DowserDon with the test and also Don for going through with it as many do not. Not terribly surprised with the result or Don's response to the result, but hopefully he's taken something useful away from it if he intends to pursue the MDC.
 
Pixel42 said:
Within minutes of failing the test he said to me that he should have tried different materials to cover the trenches, because perhaps damp plywood was masking the signal. I pointed out that in that case he wouldn't have got a response in the unblinded test either, which he seemed to accept. Later he said that everyone who designs experiments has to accept that sometimes they fail, again implying that the design of the test must be at fault because it hadn't given the "right" result. The possibility that the test was fine and had reliably confirmed what decades of previous testing had already established was not one he seemed prepared to consider. His final comments as we were leaving were that he would let the trenches "age" for say six months and then see if he could detect them - again ignoring the fact that he was able to detect the brand new trench in the unblinded test without difficulty, and also that as he now knows where the trenches are any later testing will be unblinded and therefore worthless.
Click to expand...
I (and I think most everyone here) was afraid that would be his response.

While I still congratulate him on being willing to conduct an honest test, I hope that as he thinks about what happened he will be willing to adjust his thinking to the facts. And I would encourage him to post here about his thoughts. If he is willing to continue an open and frank discussion, I'm sure many here would be glad to participate. Perhaps he will consider more (and hopefully simpler) tests to confirm (or possibly deny, I suppose) today's outcome.
 
wardenclyffe said:
DowserDon's reaction (as described by Pixel42) is not surprising. I did not expect a single failed test to shake his beliefs that are based on personal experience. If my personal experiences had been as compelling as he says his were, I doubt a single failure on my part would alter my beliefs, either.
Click to expand...
Before we went out to start the testing he described the personal experiences which had led him to believe that dowsing really does work. Most of them (some of which he described earlier in this thread) involved him getting a dowsing reaction to something he already knew was there. The one notable exception was when he detected two responses whilst walking a cliff path; later he noticed from the beach below the cliff that waterfalls fell from those positions.

Any dowsing response to something the dowser knows is there can be explained by the ideomotor effect. He may not have been able to see the waterfalls from the cliff top but he may well have been able to hear them (even if he didn't consciously register doing so) again making the ideomotor effect the most probable explanation. So even if he had justifiably found these experiences initially puzzling I honestly cannot understand why he would have continued to do so after having looked into the research that has been done on dowsing and the ideomotor effect. He's indicated that he's aware of this research (and Prof French told me he'd sent him many links) yet he ended his introductory remarks by stating that no investigation of dowsing had ever been done. After failing the test he referred again to his experiences and invited us to consider how we would have reacted if they'd happened to us, and how we could explain the responses a few of the people who'd tried using the rods had got, as if neither he nor we were aware of the research that has been done into that very question and the well established conclusions it has reached.

To me this is a real mystery. I can understand how perfectly intelligent and rational people can inadvertantly fool themselves into believing something that isn't true. I can understand why they can continue to hold that belief as long as they remain ignorant of the evidence against it and the alternative explanations of the experiences that led them to it. What I can't understand is why some persist in the belief even after they've been shown compelling objective evidence that the alternative explanation is in fact the correct one.
 
Pixel42 said:
Within minutes of failing the test he said to me that he should have tried different materials to cover the trenches, because perhaps damp plywood was masking the signal. I pointed out that in that case he wouldn't have got a response in the unblinded test either, which he seemed to accept. Later he said that everyone who designs experiments has to accept that sometimes they fail, again implying that the design of the test must be at fault because it hadn't given the "right" result. The possibility that the test was fine and had reliably confirmed what decades of previous testing had already established was not one he seemed prepared to consider. His final comments as we were leaving were that he would let the trenches "age" for say six months and then see if he could detect them - again ignoring the fact that he was able to detect the brand new trench in the unblinded test without difficulty, and also that as he now knows where the trenches are any later testing will be unblinded and therefore worthless.
Click to expand...

Sadly, I called it in post #304. :(
 
Pixel42 said:
...
To me this is a real mystery. I can understand how perfectly intelligent and rational people can inadvertantly fool themselves into believing something that isn't true. I can understand why they can continue to hold that belief as long as they remain ignorant of the evidence against it and the alternative explanations of the experiences that led them to it. What I can't understand is why some persist in the belief even after they've been shown compelling objective evidence that the alternative explanation is in fact the correct one.
Click to expand...

It took me quite some time to understand this, too. It seems to come down to this: DowserDon believes he can dowse. He needs his belief to be true. Any contradiction to his belief will be filtered out before it can enter his decision-making process. DowserDon looks like an older gentleman. It seems likely he is holding his belief for quite some time now. Having had time ferment his belief will likely make it very difficult to accept new data.

The exit from the path of logic and reason is so simple to take: Just close your eyes and find one excuse why the test was inadequate, and once again permit yourself to stumble through darkness. Pretending that we see does not give us the sight.
 
Thanks for devoting your time to following the assessment of my proposed protocol yesterday. I am naturally disappointed with the result but acknowledge that it was a fair test of my proposed protocol. It was not a JREF recognised trial.
As with any scientific experiment that produced results that were not expected, there will be an analysis and then, hopefully, further development. I'm sure that is what they have been doing at the Large Hadron Collider since they turned it on - at far greater expense.
So I'm confirming what many of you in the JREF Forum predicted - I'm blaming myself and my protocol. I am not admitting to myself that dowsing does not exist (I have been surprised too many times to consider that it is all due to the ideomotor effect). I am encouraged in this by a telephone conversation I had when I got home. It went something like this "...but you cannot have failed! You taught me and I've taught others. You must persist." As I'm easily flattered I shall indeed persist.
At a more serious level - I don't follow the arguments that one negative result should cancel out the many positive ones. Nor do I retract my statement that there have been no earlier field tests of dowsing.
I shall update my web site within the next month with a description of yesterday's events and any further tests I plan. As Pixel 42 has quoted "The correct scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up .....". David Attenborough.

The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." The chief characteristic which distinguishes a scientific method of inquiry from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, and contradict their theories about it when those theories are incorrect. (Copied from Wikipedia).
I observed systematically. I experimented. I have a hypothesis for testing, modification and development. I was hoping that prize money would enable me to commission others in UK and a USA universities to identify and measure, what I can only qualitatively describe as dowsing.
Thanks to all the well wishers who have been following my progress.
Now to the important things in life - the lawn needs mowing.
Bye
DowserDon
 
DowserDon said:
So I'm confirming what many of you in the JREF Forum predicted - I'm blaming myself and my protocol. I am not admitting to myself that dowsing does not exist (I have been surprised too many times to consider that it is all due to the ideomotor effect). I am encouraged in this by a telephone conversation I had when I got home. It went something like this "...but you cannot have failed! You taught me and I've taught others. You must persist." As I'm easily flattered I shall indeed persist.
At a more serious level - I don't follow the arguments that one negative result should cancel out the many positive ones. Nor do I retract my statement that there have been no earlier field tests of dowsing.
Click to expand...

Good luck... (with not admitting)
 
Last edited:
DowserDon said:
Thanks for devoting your time to following the assessment of my proposed protocol yesterday. I am naturally disappointed with the result but acknowledge that it was a fair test of my proposed protocol. It was not a JREF recognised trial.
As with any scientific experiment that produced results that were not expected, there will be an analysis and then, hopefully, further development. I'm sure that is what they have been doing at the Large Hadron Collider since they turned it on - at far greater expense.
So I'm confirming what many of you in the JREF Forum predicted - I'm blaming myself and my protocol. I am not admitting to myself that dowsing does not exist (I have been surprised too many times to consider that it is all due to the ideomotor effect). I am encouraged in this by a telephone conversation I had when I got home. It went something like this "...but you cannot have failed! You taught me and I've taught others. You must persist." As I'm easily flattered I shall indeed persist.
At a more serious level - I don't follow the arguments that one negative result should cancel out the many positive ones. Nor do I retract my statement that there have been no earlier field tests of dowsing.
I shall update my web site within the next month with a description of yesterday's events and any further tests I plan. As Pixel 42 has quoted "The correct scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up .....". David Attenborough.

The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." The chief characteristic which distinguishes a scientific method of inquiry from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, and contradict their theories about it when those theories are incorrect. (Copied from Wikipedia).
I observed systematically. I experimented. I have a hypothesis for testing, modification and development. I was hoping that prize money would enable me to commission others in UK and a USA universities to identify and measure, what I can only qualitatively describe as dowsing.
Thanks to all the well wishers who have been following my progress.
Now to the important things in life - the lawn needs mowing.
Bye
DowserDon
Click to expand...

Don, I agree with you in that this single failure should not keep you from doing something that brings joy into your life.

If you want to continue discussing what may or may not be with your abilities, I cordially invite you to start a separate thread where we could discuss and support you in your quest for an answer.

With kind regards!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom