Dowsing

[Bearguin]

Pardon me if this has been done before, but I have a question about the dowsing tests?

Let's say I believe I can find underground water that is naturally occuring. In fact, I think I can do it well enough that I am making a buck at it. Assume I believe I can and am not lying. I may be wrong, but I believe what I say.

So, I think I can do it in an uncontrived, and hence uncontrolled, situation. The water must be free flowing and natural so a test with pipes or bottles is not going to apply to me and I am smart enough to know that so I don't try. But I continue to find water often enough to make a living.

How would you test my abilities? How could I win the million dollars?

 

[edthedoc]

I'm no geology expert but the idea that there's lots of water flowing underground is largely a myth. Water exists all over the place underground but moves very slowly: if you dig a deep enough hole water will gradually flow into it. It doesn't flow in "underground" streams except in rare locations such as limestone caves.

Dowsers are the most common type of applicants for the $1m and ALL have comprehensively failed. If you think you're different then do apply to Randi using the usual form, but you might want to search the Swift articles for info on dowsers that have been tested.

 

[glee]

Let's say I believe I can find underground water that is naturally occuring. In fact, I think I can do it well enough that I am making a buck at it. Assume I believe I can and am not lying. I may be wrong, but I believe what I say.

Randi has commented that dowsers are usually astonished when their 'powers' fail to work. So they do seem to genuinely believe.

So, I think I can do it in an uncontrived, and hence uncontrolled, situation. The water must be free flowing and natural so a test with pipes or bottles is not going to apply to me and I am smart enough to know that so I don't try. But I continue to find water often enough to make a living.

How would you test my abilities? How could I win the million dollars?

Now we come to your definitions (very important when testing scientifically and for money).

What is 'uncontrived'?
What is 'naturally occurring'?
Why would they affect your 'abilities'?

'Free flowing' certainly applies to pipes, but I have questions for the dowser who claims he can't detect water in pipes:
How do you know your ability exists?
Do you dig up the ground every time you dowse?
How far down do you go?

One of these days I'm going to set up the British Levitation Foundation.
We will register as a charity, apply for a patent and advertise teaching courses in levitation. Naturally there will be anecdotal 'evidence' supplied to 'support' our claims.
The only problem with our levitation is that you can't do it if a non-believer is watching.
I think you can deduce the rest!

 

[Bearguin]

Just to be clear, I have no power to do anything. This is just curiosity.

By naturally occurring, I am saying I can only find natural sources of water. Whether it be a spring, or underground water flow, I can't find it in pipes or bottles etc. So I look at the tests that have been performed and will say I would fail them because I never claimed I could do what is being tested. But I make a good buck finding water for wells etc.

So what kind of test could be created for this.

I'm asking because I've read the Swift articles and am not sure they are adequate to convince someone of the non-existence of their abilities. All the tests I've read about have been contrived and when the dowser fails, they then start claiming they can't find water that way. So I thought I would start where they end up.

Again, just being curious. I cannot dowse but have a theory regarding it (that is very mundane).

 

[RichardR]

By naturally occurring, I am saying I can only find natural sources of water. Whether it be a spring, or underground water flow, I can't find it in pipes or bottles etc.

Why would this be? What is the magical peroperty of a little piece of plastic pipe or bottle that prevents dowsing from working?

 

[Bearguin]

I dunno. I just know thats not what I am claiming.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The JREF says the claimant must define what they can do, then together, the JREF and the claimant will agree upon a method to test the claim.

It sounds like your hypothetical dowser and the JREF, might have a problem reaching an agreement, regarding what to test for.


Most dowsers who are making a living by 'dowsing', can't afford to take the JREF challenge..

 

[RichardR]

I dunno. I just know thats not what I am claiming.

You agree you can only dowse “in an uncontrived, and hence uncontrolled, situation”. So how do you know you are really dowsing water, rather than randomly selecting places where water just happens to be? How do you know if you are better than someone who doesn’t have any dowsing skills, but who just selects a place at random?

Is it possible that you’re fooling yourself into thinking you can dowse?

 

[Bearguin]

So if I claim I can dowse and find enough water to dig an effective well. Say a 15 gpm well within 300 feet. I need that much water in order to be able to dowse so even a big pipe doesn't work, let alone a buried bottle of water.

How would you test that against random chance? I understand it's uncontrolled, but that seems to be the crux of what dowsers claim after failing a test.

I guess I asked the question because I can see a scenerio where one would fail the test but still have validation that dowsing works. And I'm curious how one could disprove the entire topic.

I just wonder if the current method of testing dowsers isn't the same as searching for IPU with a metal detector (a Dilbert joke).

Maybe I should have done this in banter but posts get lost there so quickly and I am curious about a reasonable answer.

 

[RichardR]

So if I claim I can dowse and find enough water to dig an effective well. Say a 15 gpm well within 300 feet. I need that much water in order to be able to dowse so even a big pipe doesn't work, let alone a buried bottle of water.

I presume you mean 300 feet down?

How would you test that against random chance? I understand it's uncontrolled, but that seems to be the crux of what dowsers claim after failing a test.

Divide the field into grids. Using some random method, one of the grids is chosen for the "control". You did 300 feet at your location, and another 300 foot hole is dug at the random location.

You'll need to do that for a number of different fields (you'll need a statistician to tell you how many.) You need to be right more often than the random digs by a significant number of times. (Again, you'll need a statistician to tell you how many.)

It requires a lot of digging in a lot of fields. Would you be prepared to pay all the costs of this?

I guess I asked the question because I can see a scenerio where one would fail the test but still have validation that dowsing works.

How would it be validation that dowsing works if the results are not compared with a control?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

So if I claim I can dowse and find enough water to dig an effective well. Say a 15 gpm well within 300 feet. I need that much water in order to be able to dowse so even a big pipe doesn't work, let alone a buried bottle of water.

Why don't you send Randi an email with this information and see what he says?


The thing you have to do is demonstrate, that what you do, happens more often than what chance would predict.


You could possibly arrange for a third party to supervise your efforts, so you are talking about the expense of digging real wells, and making sure all guesses are drilled, and you count the misses.

You can see that this might present some problems, when it comes to verification.

It has also been pointed out, that if you drill deep enough, almost anywhere, you will end up with water.


This doesn't prove you can dowse, it just proves that someone is willing to pay you for something, that they could have done as well ( pun.. ) without you....

 

[Bearguin]

Why don't you send Randi an email with this information and see what he says?

Maybe I have not been clear enough.

I cannot dowse. I am asking a hypothetical question that has puzzled me since reading about dowsing.

I honestly don't beleive people can dowse, but I don't believe the tests I have read about can do anything to dissuade those who believe they can. And I don't think that what testing I have seen is adequate to remove the possibility that people can find water given the scenerio I described.

I think the testing I have read about is flawed in it's basic premise.

I think RichardR is on the right track. I agree that testing against a control is required, just that the controls used in tests so far don't strike me as the way to go.

Kinda like looking for IPU's in a sock drawer with a metal detector (can't believe I've posted that twice in one day).

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Maybe I have not been clear enough.

I cannot dowse. I am asking a hypothetical question that has puzzled me since reading about dowsing.

I honestly don't beleive people can dowse, but I don't believe the tests I have read about can do anything to dissuade those who believe they can. And I don't think that what testing I have seen is adequate to remove the possibility that people can find water given the scenerio I described.

I think the testing I have read about is flawed in it's basic premise.

I think RichardR is on the right track. I agree that testing against a control is required, just that the controls used in tests so far don't strike me as the way to go.

Kinda like looking for IPU's in a sock drawer with a metal detector (can't believe I've posted that twice in one day).

I understand where you are coming from, but we have had many arguments here regarding:

" The inability to apply the Scientific Method to an undefined phenomena .."

It also has to do with ' falsifiability ', which is another test for veracity.

If you cannot clearly demonstrate the conditions under which something would not work, then it is unlikely that the opposite is true.

 

[Bearguin]

It also has to do with ' falsifiability ', which is another test for veracity.

If you cannot clearly demonstrate the conditions under which something would not work, then it is unlikely that the opposite is true.

Sorry. I may be daft but I'm not sure what you are saying.

I agree that it is easy to fake it (either intentionally or not) but I'm wondering if there is a real life test for these things. I think RichardR is on the right track, just that it would be difficult.

Anyway, I see this is a little more true to life then I expected.

See http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15527

I never intended for this to be so true to life. Here are two guys making a living at this with people insisting their use in a legal contract. I'm stunned.

 

[TechHead]

Your "scenario" is very similar to something I mentioned in a recent thread. Pipe dowsing tests test pipe dowsing. They may, or may not, test groundwater dowsing.

It is entirely possible that a person who claims to dowse groundwater, will claim that he cannot dowse piped water. Why that may be, or what he might believe is happening with groundwater (flowing in "streams", etc.), is really of no importance. In claims for the $Prize, Randi is not interested in a theory of how "it works", nor is the claimant interested in Randi's explanation of how "it cain't work". Just design a test for the claim, and get on with it.

One of the important things in a test for a paranormal claim, is to have a good baseline to compare with. You can't just have the dowser identify locations and drill wells, because there is nothing to compare their success rate with. Even using historical well data is not necessarily reliable.

So, for pure g/w dowsing there are a couple of approaches to it, one expensive, and the other phenomenally expensive. The phenomenally expensive approach would be to have the dowser indicate well sites, at several different locations, and to also have (say, 3) professional hydrogeologists also indicate good well sites. Then compare the dowsed results, with the non-dowsed results. This means drilling a lot of wells.

A slightly cheaper approach is to have the dowser identify a good well site, and to also identify, in the same general area, a poor well site. Drill both locations and compare, and repeat for several locales. There is a risk in this, that the dowser may be good at reading geological features, and will show some success. Perhaps have several hydrogeologists analyze the locations, and require that the dowser must exceed their analyses by some margin.

All-in-all, doing a true groundwater test is VERY difficult. That's why pipe tests are usually substituted.

 

[Bearguin]

All-in-all, doing a true groundwater test is VERY difficult. That's why pipe tests are usually substituted.

And that is also why they have an "out" when the testing fails.

I think that is where I was going with this.

 

[pgwenthold]

And that is also why they have an "out" when the testing fails.

I think that is where I was going with this.

If they agree to a test with "water through pipes," then the pipes cannot be blamed when the test fails.

The testee must state _in advance_ what they can do and a testing protocol must be agreed upon by both sides based on that claim. Thus, if the claimnant cannot dowse water in pipes, then s/he should not agree to that test (as you indicated in your scenerio).

Just because this is such a problem, Randi even advises that the claimnant test themselves with the same sort of protocol before even applying. Then, when the tests are run, he usually allows the applicant to test to make sure they can operate under the given conditions. Thus, in the Italy dowsing exercise described in FlimFlam, he had an identical water pipe out in the open and asked the dowsers to check whether they could detect water going through that pipe. They all agreed initially that they were able to do so.

Now, if they would not say that they could do so, then they would not be tested in that way and a different test would have to be devised. As others have noted, this could be much more difficult.

But the main point is that there is no "out" after the testing is complete. The nature of the game is that you do only what you agree to do, such that if the setup is not for you, then you do not agree to do it in the first place.

You are welcome to apply again but to modify your claim.

 

[Bearguin]

But the main point is that there is no "out" after the testing is complete. The nature of the game is that you do only what you agree to do, such that if the setup is not for you, then you do not agree to do it in the first place.

I understand that, but assume dowsing, as I describe, works. The dowser believes he can dowse and doesn't realize the limits, i.e. only groundwater. So he fails the test, walks away and says "oh. I guess I can't dowse in pipes."

I understand what Randi is doing and I understand why, but all he is shown is that you can't dowse in pipes. I was looking for a broader test.

Anyway, this is all just in interest. As I said, I don't believe dowsing works and do beilieve the dowsers are deluded. I was just thinking of why.

 

[pgwenthold]

I understand that, but assume dowsing, as I describe, works. The dowser believes he can dowse and doesn't realize the limits, i.e. only groundwater. So he fails the test, walks away and says "oh. I guess I can't dowse in pipes."

I understand what Randi is doing and I understand why, but all he is shown is that you can't dowse in pipes.

No, that is not all he has shown. He has shown that the dowser cannot do what s/he claimed s/he could do.

If the dowser had any doubts that they could dowse water in pipes, then they should not have agreed to the conditions of the test. By taking the test, they are claiming that they _can_ dowse water in pipes.

And in the original agreement, the applicant is strongly advised to try the test themselves before submitting the application.

If a dowser who lost attributed it to the water being in pipes, all Randi would have to say is that 1) they agreed before testing that they could detect water in pipes, and 2) they were given the option to verify that they could detect water in pipes before the test began. If they couldn't detect water in pipes, it should have been evident in the non-controlled test at the beginning.

Conclusion: they cannot do what they claim to be able to do.

 

[CurtC]

I think people here are being a little obtuse to what GA is saying. He's not saying that Randi's tests don't do what they say they can do. He's saying, and I think it's a good point, that based on what I understand dowsers to think they do, that finding an underground natural source for water could be different than finding it in a pipe. For one thing, you'd expect that the underground source would have quite a bit of water.

Sure there are dowsers who wanted to take the test, and they thought they could find it in pipes and failed, but I can see them going home and saying "well, I thought pipes would work, but anyway I know I can find it in springs/aquifers in the ground."

So GA is asking what would be a good test of that? The answer is that it would be expensive, but could be done. Make a 10x10 grid, have the dowser find the spots where to find water, then dig every one to see if there's water there. You'd also have to control for the dowser picking up on geologic clues. How could that be done?