Dowsing Article - My correspondance with the writer

[SpaceFluffer]

Like Mr. Randi, I wrote to Eye Byron, the author of the helenair.com article on the dowsing group. I received a reply on Tues 24th, and wrote back again, but didn't hear from her a second time. I've reproduced the mailings below for those that might like to read them...

Dear Ms. Byron,

Since you seem to be utterly convinced on the effectiveness of the dowsers
described in the article, I thought you may also be interested in knowing
more about detailed studies conducted on the art of dowsing.

http://www.randi.org/library/dowsing/index.html

http://www.csicop.org/si/9901/dowsing.html

Regards,
Mike

Her reply:

I'm surprised to hear you thought I was a true believer in dowsing. As a matter of fact, I'm more of a true skeptic. However, my beliefs are not the point here - the 40 people who gathered at this convention were convinced that they could divine where water flows underground, and that was what I reported. As a professional, I cover a wide range of topics, including issues as diverse as right to life vs pro choice, without instilling my beliefs in my coverage. Thank you for your interest in the Independent Record. Sincerely, Eve Byron

My second email:

Dear Ms. Byron,

Many thanks for your reply. I apologize if I read too much into your article, but statements such as:

"Florence Young knew since she was 10 years old that she could tap into some powerful things." (my emphasis)

convey immediately to the reader the sense that Mrs. Young has some kind of undeniable gift. Why not say that she "believed since she was 10 years old"?

OK - I don't mean to be picky, but I would ask why your article did not comment on the scientific proof (or lack thereof) on the subject of dowsing. I understand that you are simply covering an event, but you do give background information on dowsing - why not include mention of the scientific status of the art as part of that information?

I understand that you must strive to avoid instilling your beliefs in articles, but it seems to me that making a mention that there is no scientific proof whatsoever that dowsing works, may - at the very least - avoid the possibility of a reader taking up dowsing.

Kind Regards,
Mike

I hope I hear something back, but I don't hold out too much hope...

 

[wittgenst3in]

from the article:

I can't do this myself; I'm only a tool

That about sums it up.


Good work for emailing the author, SpaceFluffer. I don't for a moment believe that she is a skeptical. More likely she is simply trying to garner readership.

With quotes like:

Her ability scared her and she pushed it away for a while, but the former school teacher from Decker eventually embraced her abilities, and for the past 50 years one way she's used her skills is to detect water underground.

Here the author is clearly saying that a person does something. Not saying she thinks something, or something possibly happened.

On another note, what the hell is so scary about the supposed ability to detect water? If I woke up tomorrow with the ability to detect water, I'd use it to check if the vending machine was full before leaving my desk. Not get scared and 'push it away'.

Heck, just tell Hockett your name and general location of where you live, and he'll concentrate for a moment, then tell you where to drill for water on your property, how deep you'll go and how many gallons per minute you'll find.

Simply stunning. Note the phrasing of this is a statement, not a quote or speculation.

 

[thatguywhojuggles]

-----Original Message-----
From: Walter Beals
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 7:22 PM
To: Eve Byron
Subject: dowsing

Eve,

If you ever want to be taken seriously as a writer, you should investigate a little deeper. Dowsing has been debunked for years now. Good luck.


----- Original Message -----
From: Eve Byron
To: Walter Beals
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 7:11 AM
Subject: RE: dowsing


If I ever decide to take dowsing seriously, I'll keep that in mind.

 

[Hand Bent Spoon]

That's sloppy reporting at best. She made factual claims outside of the context of any quote directly supporting dowsing. One could easily be lead to believe she thinks dowsing is legitimate (as I did), given how she wrote the article in this sloppy, hack manner. She needs to know that a clarification on this article is very much in order.

 

[merphie]

Who needs to write the author? I have this stuff at work. Apprently one of my co-workers had a favorable experience with a water dowser.

He lives in the country and had a dowser check for water. They guy pin pointed one water source at one local and another seperate water source at another 20 feet away. (This happened like 30 years ago)

When they drilled 75 feet down on the first, they struck water. It has been a good well and he still uses.

The second one they drilled (Don't remember the depth) and struck another water source apparently different from the first because the water was under high pressure. The water came out with enough force that it erroded the ground causeing the well to collaspe. He said he capped the second well and hasn't used it since. He is curious.

I don't believe the value of this due to the lack of detailed information or seeing the event, but you can not convience him that is was a hoax. (Even with presented with the idea that 94% of the ground has water accessible through drilling)