• 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.

Dowsing Test

Don't get yourself all worked up over the double-blind stuff. The idea is simply not to allow him to get any clues to the locations by watching you. I'm quite sure that if you conduct a test in your back yard that you can watch him do this thing without tipping him off, especially if you stress to him that he's not to look at you or talk to you during the test. At the same time just be careful not to give any non-verbal cues such as staring at the targets or moving around. I think sitting in a lawn chair while wearing sunglasses is sufficient for such a test.

The actual test will depend on what he claims he can do. The most important thing for you to do is start with open tests. For example, get some foam cups. Put water in some and stones/sand in the others so they all cups are "heavy" enough. Place them around the room. Let him do his thing. I'm willing to bet he can find the water with no problem - his rods will twitch accordingly.

Now you've got a testable claim. To construct the test properly, understand that as a human, you are not random. Therefore, use something like a coin to determine whether a given location will have water or stones. That way you don't unconsciously follow a pattern.

You have to be concerned about the cups themselves offering clues (minor defects like pinch marks, warping), so don't reuse the same cups and lids from the open trial. Rather than use 20 cups, do five trials with four cups each (one in each corner for the room, for example). Do not give him feedback after each trial - wait until the end to tally the results.

When he's done, use these tables to judge his results. With 20 trials and 50% probability (water, no water), he would need to get 17 or more correct to beat 100:1 odds. He would need 19 or 20 to be 10,000:1 odds.

Of course, he'll get some other number. Use this binomial distribution calculator to figure out the odds. For example, suppose he got 13 correct. Plug 0.5 into the probability of success field, 20 into the number of trials and 13 into number of successes. Hit calculate. The very last field says that he had a 0.13 chance of getting 13 or more correct. Plug that number into Windows Calculator and hit the 1/x button. That will show you that he had a 1 in 7.6 chance by simply guessing, which is not far off from guessing one roll of a die.

BTW, in case it's not clear, the reason for doing the open test is two-fold. First, it gives you a testable claim. If he can do it without lids, then sure he can do it with lids, right? Second, it helps prove the point that his brain is making the rods move, not the water.
 
Or 18 out of 20 to beat 1000:1 odds suitable for the Preleminary, yes?

I still like his idea of burying things in the ground(if it gets that far) because it conforms more closely with the claims of dowsers and avoids all the little problems that cropped up setting up Edge's above ground tests.
 
If you change your mind and want to do some digging you can head up my way and turn over the raised beds. I'll bury some water in one of them and then your friend can dowse to his content and you can watch. Win-win, my raised beds get some much needed work and your friend gets to practice.
 
I'm not sure flipping a coin is a good idea. With a 50% success rate, he'll probably believe he's succeeding. Other people on this thread have had some very good ideas, maybe you should try the following test...

  1. Place a water bottle under a single bucket in a room, and have your friend check that his dowsing can detect it. Make sure he's absolutely certain that he can detect the water under the bucket before you continue.
  2. Bring 5 more buckets and a volunteer with a die (dice) into the room.
  3. You and your dowsing friend leave the room, while the volunteer moves all the buckets into new positions, and then rolls the die to determine which bucket to put the water under. (Moving all the buckets ensures he can't tell that one bucket has been moved slightly, and therefore must be the one he lifted up to put the water under.)
  4. When the volunteer comes out, you and your dowsing friend go in, and he tries to find the water.
  5. Afterwards, you leave the room and send the volunteer back in.
  6. Repeat indefinitely, keeping a record of results.
 
Yes, I know exactly what double blind means, you just read it as if there would be crowd there, all who knew where said item was.
No, I did not assume a crowd. From your first post it looks very much like you plan to bury the target, and that you plan to observe the test, which would mean that it would not be double blinded. Did I misunderstand?
 
Don't get yourself all worked up over the double-blind stuff. The idea is simply not to allow him to get any clues to the locations by watching you. I'm quite sure that if you conduct a test in your back yard that you can watch him do this thing without tipping him off, especially if you stress to him that he's not to look at you or talk to you during the test. At the same time just be careful not to give any non-verbal cues such as staring at the targets or moving around. I think sitting in a lawn chair while wearing sunglasses is sufficient for such a test.(snip)
But not giving subtle visual (or even auditory) cues is extremely hard to do, UY. Animal trainers have deceived themselves into thinking that the animals they have worked with are super intelligent because the creatures picked up on cues that were so subtle even the trainer was not aware of them (the "clever Hans" situation). Observers in this instance and others eventually pinned down the cues that the animals were picking up on, so humans can do it; it depends on how attentive they are. Double-blinding is still so valuable as a way of screening out inadvertent physical cues that it should be part of any self-test.
 
But not giving subtle visual (or even auditory) cues is extremely hard to do, UY. Animal trainers have deceived themselves into thinking that the animals they have worked with are super intelligent because the creatures picked up on cues that were so subtle even the trainer was not aware of them (the "clever Hans" situation). Observers in this instance and others eventually pinned down the cues that the animals were picking up on, so humans can do it; it depends on how attentive they are. Double-blinding is still so valuable as a way of screening out inadvertent physical cues that it should be part of any self-test.

I agree. Even a slight chance of giving the target away ruins the whole premise of the test and might end up encouraging someone to think they really had a power that would presumably be nonexistent. As with the VfF tests, doing a flawed test may be worse than no test at all.
 
I agree. Even a slight chance of giving the target away ruins the whole premise of the test and might end up encouraging someone to think they really had a power that would presumably be nonexistent. As with the VfF tests, doing a flawed test may be worse than no test at all.

Sure. Before you cross the street (where people drive on the right side of the road, that is), look left, then right, then left again. But then again, maybe something changed on the right, so look there again. But wait, look left again. Okay, now we gotta check right again. Dear me, it's just never safe, is it? We need a second person to check the other side just in case!

Look, guys, we're talking informal tests in somebody's backyard or living room. We're talking about an effect where the person is drawing clues from the environment, not a person. Probably every other time he's done this nobody "knew" the target except perhaps himself. He probably looks at the ground or the sticks (or whatever hell else he uses).

As I explained, it's not hard at all to stay out of the person's field of view. Even then, it's not hard to deliberately avoid giving clues if the person glances your way. It's called a poker face. You don't need MDC level controls for something like this, and fussing over minor details actually gets in the way of conducting what might be a very useful test that could educate someone. Even Randi himself has witnessed dowsing (and other) tests where he had $10K on the line.
 
I can only say that if I were self-testing, I'd want to rule out any chance that, when the real test came along, I couldn't do what was needed. Therefore the double-blinding. As for poker face....

Well, in college one of my roommates was the luckiest guy I'd ever known at cards. He played every weekend, and he actually made his way through college by winning money gambling at poker and Hearts. His dad had taught him cards, and he was expert at reading "tells." He told me about some of them, but I've never been into cards and didn't take advantage. Some weekends he'd lose a little, as in fifty or a hundred bucks...but most weekends he'd win a lot--as in a thousand or so (this of course was illegal in our state). Never did he come out behind for the month. He said the harder someone tried to maintain a poker face, the easier it was to read the tells. I asked him once why he didn't go to Vegas and clean up. "I'd be playing against pros then," he explained. "They might be better than I am. I make money at this. I wouldn't go to Vegas because...I'm not a gambler."
 
Sure. Before you cross the street (where people drive on the right side of the road, that is), look left, then right, then left again. But then again, maybe something changed on the right, so look there again. But wait, look left again. Okay, now we gotta check right again. Dear me, it's just never safe, is it? We need a second person to check the other side just in case!

I am assuming you are taking this tone for some reason beyond the fact that we simply disagree, so I'll take the same tack:

You're right. You've proven it is *completely useless* to tell people to look both ways before crossing the street.

Look, guys, we're talking informal tests in somebody's backyard or living room. We're talking about an effect where the person is drawing clues from the environment, not a person. Probably every other time he's done this nobody "knew" the target except perhaps himself. He probably looks at the ground or the sticks (or whatever hell else he uses).

As I explained, it's not hard at all to stay out of the person's field of view. Even then, it's not hard to deliberately avoid giving clues if the person glances your way. It's called a poker face.

And yet we have records of people managing to fool themselves -- and others -- for years using these same types of clues that are supposedly so easy to block out.

We're not talking about spending ten thousand dollars or building a box ginder bridge or having the guy conduct surgery on himslef. We're talking about having one extra person show up and stand around for half an hour. It is a small, easily-performed step that eliminates a pernicious type of potential problem. In the cost-beneft analysis, there is almost no cost. Why not take a simple, easily-accomplished step to provide an extra safeguard?
 
I can only say that if I were self-testing, I'd want to rule out any chance that, when the real test came along, I couldn't do what was needed. Therefore the double-blinding.
Think about this realistically. Take my example of four containers spread out in a room. Have one be the target using the randomization I outlined. Run the trials without lids. His ability works.

Put the lids on and run 11 trials. During the trials stand outside of the room so that you can see all four cups and the subject. Set them close enough to the far wall that he can't get on the other side and face you. The only way he can see your face is if he looks over his shoulder. If that happens, invalidate the trial.

If he gets 8 or more correct, he's beaten 1 in ~900 odds. If he does that, then, by golly, go ahead with a double-blind test. The reality, though, is that something else tipped him off, such as how light passed through the cups or the "sweat" on the outside. In other words, if his buddy passes a test like this, the entire test needs to be re-examined. This needs to be discussed up front anyway.

Well, in college one of my roommates was the luckiest guy I'd ever known at cards. He played every weekend, and he actually made his way through college by winning money gambling at poker and Hearts. His dad had taught him cards, and he was expert at reading "tells." He told me about some of them, but I've never been into cards and didn't take advantage. Some weekends he'd lose a little, as in fifty or a hundred bucks...but most weekends he'd win a lot--as in a thousand or so (this of course was illegal in our state). Never did he come out behind for the month. He said the harder someone tried to maintain a poker face, the easier it was to read the tells. I asked him once why he didn't go to Vegas and clean up. "I'd be playing against pros then," he explained. "They might be better than I am. I make money at this. I wouldn't go to Vegas because...I'm not a gambler."

1) We're not dealing with a claim that is known to rely on the ability of the person to read people non-verbally. The "knowledge" comes from the environment, prior knowledge, and the fact that in many places it's hard to dig and not find water eventually. And let's not forget that many dowsers never actually check to see if they are right - they just assume that if the sticks move, it worked.

2) I'm not suggesting that the subject go stand in front of each target, then spend 30 seconds staring at the proctor to see if he gives anything away. I'm saying that you set it up to avoid the subject seeing the proctor and put on a poker face in case of inadvertent glances. If the guy is staring at the proctor, then by all means, change the test around.

Hey, if the guy can find a third party willing to waste an hour or two testing yet another dowser, that's great - do the double-blind thing. From what I have seen it is exceedingly hard to get somebody to do a freaking test in the first place, so don't create obstacles that aren't vital to such a simple demonstration.
 
Again, this is just me, but--if I thought I had the paranormal ability to dowse (and in reality I'm quite sure I don't), even if I believed that I could be 100% successful in a ten out of ten runs of picking one water target out of five possibles, here is what I would do:

Find two friends to help me.

Do an open test in which I knew where the water was in order to make sure my mojo was working.

Then do the double-blind test. While I'm inside or in another room with one guy, the second goes into the test area. Rolls a die or otherwise makes a random number determination between 1 and 5.

Puts the water target down. Covers it with a numbered plastic container. Puts the other four numbered plastic containers down with nothing under them. Writes down the number of the target container on a sheet he keeps with him.

Signals that everything is ready and leaves before the test.

I would come in with my observer (who would watch to make sure I was not nudging the containers or otherwise determining physically where the target is). I'd dowse and then tell the observer the number of the container that the water is under. He would write this down on a score sheet that he keeps with him.

We'd leave the area and signal the second helper that he can now come in and repeat the randomization, move the containers--all of them--around and put the water under the one the die selected.

Repeat for a total of ten times.

Then we would compare the score sheet and the record sheet.

If I could get ten out of ten under those conditions, I'd have no trouble at all getting in touch with a local paper or with someone at the local community college to come and witness a second double-blinded test. That would qualify me to apply for the challenge.

But you know what? Even if I achieved a run of a hundred total attempts with 100% success, when I applied for the challenge, I'd hedge. I'd say that for the preliminary test I'd do, say, twenty runs of five targets and would get a minimum of 14 correct.

A.E. Housman wrote in a poem, "While the sun and moon endure, / Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure; / I'd face it as a wise man would, / And train for ill and not for good."* Even though I had a perfect track record, even though I might be absolutely convinced that I could get a perfect score on the challenge, until I actually took that challenge I would make things as hard as possible on myself--not easy. If I did take the challenge, I would want to win it, not wind up looking like a self-deluded idiot.

*The poem is "Terence, This Is Stupid Stuff," which about sums up my opinion of dowsing.
 
Again, this is just me, but--if I thought I had the paranormal ability to dowse (and in reality I'm quite sure I don't), even if I believed that I could be 100% successful in a ten out of ten runs of picking one water target out of five possibles, here is what I would do:


Sounds a lot like the test I suggested in post 24, except I used six possibles. :)
 

Back
Top Bottom