How it Works40 mins ago
Is there any scientific proof that dowsing actually works?
53 Answers
I have seen dowsers on the TV make some astounding water finds.
Is dowsing heavily disputed or can/has it been proved to actually work?
Is dowsing heavily disputed or can/has it been proved to actually work?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by RATTER15. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Scotman, you are a victim of a myth.
"The "science has proved that bees can't fly" urban myth originated in a 1934 book by entomologist Antoine Magnan, who discussed a mathematical equation by Andre Sainte-Lague, an engineer. The equation proved that the maximum lift for an aircraft's wings could not be achieved at equivalent speeds of a bee. I.e., an airplane the size of a bee, moving as slowly as a bee, could not fly. Although this did not mean a bee can't fly (which after all does not have stationary wings like the posited teency aircraft), nevertheless the idea that Magnan's book said bees oughtn't be able to fly began to spread."
See here:
http://www.paghat.com/beeflight.html
"The "science has proved that bees can't fly" urban myth originated in a 1934 book by entomologist Antoine Magnan, who discussed a mathematical equation by Andre Sainte-Lague, an engineer. The equation proved that the maximum lift for an aircraft's wings could not be achieved at equivalent speeds of a bee. I.e., an airplane the size of a bee, moving as slowly as a bee, could not fly. Although this did not mean a bee can't fly (which after all does not have stationary wings like the posited teency aircraft), nevertheless the idea that Magnan's book said bees oughtn't be able to fly began to spread."
See here:
http://www.paghat.com/beeflight.html
As to ''accepting things just because we're told so'' I'd point out that's what an education system does for us. Dowsers have been employed widely by the military, and by government departments. From these operations, reports submitted aren't in the form of hearsay, myth, or old wives tales, but instead are first-hand accounts of the success of the methods used. Do read the link in my previous answer and find out how to try it for yourselves.
I apologise for my earlier posting which was a poor attempt at being humorous.
Nevertheless, I have read the article to which heathfied provided a link and I remain open minded on the issue.
However, as Trimeresurus is experienced in the field and I always appreciate his knowledge on so many matters, perhaps it is in order for me to invite his further comments.
Ron.
Nevertheless, I have read the article to which heathfied provided a link and I remain open minded on the issue.
However, as Trimeresurus is experienced in the field and I always appreciate his knowledge on so many matters, perhaps it is in order for me to invite his further comments.
Ron.
heathfield, anecdotes, alas, are not evidence since no objective observer is in any position to check the exact circumstances of the time.
This is why proper, controlled, carefully-observed tests are the only way we can validate these claims.
And no such test has ever produced any positive result.
The explanation that must apply to many of the anecdotes is that the 'dowser' recognised, perhaps subconsciously, the signs of water and reacted accordingly.
When such clues are eliminated (for example, by burying pipes under neutral ground and turning water on and off randomly, blindfolding the 'dowser' to see whether he can find the same hot-spot again, and setting up many other strictly objective conditions) the results are never better than one would expect by chance.
Your naive puzzlement as to why 'dowsers' fail in thse conditions reminds me of a group promoting ESP who said that they don't use double-blind tests 'because they never work'!
It has 'been explained', heathfield, many times.
This is why proper, controlled, carefully-observed tests are the only way we can validate these claims.
And no such test has ever produced any positive result.
The explanation that must apply to many of the anecdotes is that the 'dowser' recognised, perhaps subconsciously, the signs of water and reacted accordingly.
When such clues are eliminated (for example, by burying pipes under neutral ground and turning water on and off randomly, blindfolding the 'dowser' to see whether he can find the same hot-spot again, and setting up many other strictly objective conditions) the results are never better than one would expect by chance.
Your naive puzzlement as to why 'dowsers' fail in thse conditions reminds me of a group promoting ESP who said that they don't use double-blind tests 'because they never work'!
It has 'been explained', heathfield, many times.
-- answer removed --
I concur with Trimmy's latest post. And as to ''no objective observer is in any position to check the exact circumstances of the time'' that simply isn't the case. I reiterate what I've already stated - that military reports and reports to goverment departments are first hand accounts from on-the-spot observers.
Trimeresurus - OK, tell me what sort of conditions I should set up to test myself. Where should I do it, considering that many places have water underground anyway? Plan it for me and I'll try it. And whom should I employ as an objective scientific observer? If I don't have that then my experience will be just another anecdote.
(Incidentally, your finding the water supply into your house is hardly impressive. You knew it was there and which way it was going!)
Heathfield - I'll have to read that long link again to see how rigorous the observation standards were. Tomorrow though.
(Incidentally, your finding the water supply into your house is hardly impressive. You knew it was there and which way it was going!)
Heathfield - I'll have to read that long link again to see how rigorous the observation standards were. Tomorrow though.
I have had this argument with heathfield before regarding dowsing... his answer always remains the same... anecdote, and "try it yourself" - which, of course, is no kind of answer at all.
There is no convincing evidence. I dont care how many anecdotes you relay, unless you can show evidence from a properly controlled scientific trial, or even a reasonably convincing hypothesis as to how it can work, I call ***.
People have pointed it out before - Randis organisation will give you 1 million dollars if you can demonstrate the skill in a controlled environment. Not one applicant has ever succeeded.
There is no convincing evidence. I dont care how many anecdotes you relay, unless you can show evidence from a properly controlled scientific trial, or even a reasonably convincing hypothesis as to how it can work, I call ***.
People have pointed it out before - Randis organisation will give you 1 million dollars if you can demonstrate the skill in a controlled environment. Not one applicant has ever succeeded.
I have read that link again, heathfield, and all it contains are stories. We are not told how rigorous the probing of the results was.
The various writings on this subject (for example Chapter 9 in Martin Gardner's "Fads and Fallacies") explain the number of clues a dowser can receive, sometimes subconsciously, to the presence of water. His thoughts are then transmitted to his rods by the ideomotor effect - the same force that drives a ouija board. In proper trials everything is done to eliminate these clues. The stories from people who have not employed these rigorous controls are therefore worth nothing.
The various writings on this subject (for example Chapter 9 in Martin Gardner's "Fads and Fallacies") explain the number of clues a dowser can receive, sometimes subconsciously, to the presence of water. His thoughts are then transmitted to his rods by the ideomotor effect - the same force that drives a ouija board. In proper trials everything is done to eliminate these clues. The stories from people who have not employed these rigorous controls are therefore worth nothing.
Chakka, and others who'd like to try it...My first attempt at dowsing came after reading about it in a science fiction magazine. The author of the article explained how to do it by using rods, rather than a pendulum. I tried it out by walking over a 3' diameter dry culvert running under the road, thinking that if it didn't work here, it wouldn't work anywhere. To put it mildly, I was very surprised when the rods just about wrapped themselves round my neck as I walked forward over the culvert. There's nothing wrong in starting out by trying it at a spot where you know for sure there's something there. If you're successful, you'll immediately be aware that you seemed to doing nothing to make the rods react as they did. Carry on from there!
When I moved into my present house, I knew there was a leak in the old lead pipe mains water supply from the street. By dowsing, I found not one, but two leaks in the pipe. Having locating them, I saved quite a bit of time and money by being able to dig up the rather lengthy path at the exact spots to do successful repairs.
Those who can dowse know they can do it. They are also aware that, for some puzzling and frustrating reason, that scientific tests don't work. Yet they carry on doing it, not least in the employ of the military and the government, local councils and utility companies. I cannot help comparing those who deny it, but will not to try it, to those officials of the Vatican who refused to look through Galileo's telescope.
When I moved into my present house, I knew there was a leak in the old lead pipe mains water supply from the street. By dowsing, I found not one, but two leaks in the pipe. Having locating them, I saved quite a bit of time and money by being able to dig up the rather lengthy path at the exact spots to do successful repairs.
Those who can dowse know they can do it. They are also aware that, for some puzzling and frustrating reason, that scientific tests don't work. Yet they carry on doing it, not least in the employ of the military and the government, local councils and utility companies. I cannot help comparing those who deny it, but will not to try it, to those officials of the Vatican who refused to look through Galileo's telescope.
heathfield, your flawed analogy with Galileo's telescope shows that you still don't understand. I could go out and 'try it' but who would set up the right conditions? This is what I mean:
If I walk out of here with dowsing rods I know that there are water pipes leading from my house to the street and that there are water mains and sewers bordering all the roads. And as soon as I get such a knowledge or hint of water the ideomotor effect kicks in and I twitch the rods subconsciously. If I go to a greensward in the local park and the rods twitch do I dig up that part of the park to check, and then all the rest of the park to see whether that spot is unique?
For a proper test you need an area where there is no clue to the presence of water, a way of checking the dowser's results, a person to set up all the right conditions, and (to ensure double-blindness) a second person, who was not involved in the setting-up, to observe and record.
Do you now see why casual cases of 'Go out and try it!' often work whereas trials under proper conditions never do? And why RATTER15's results will mean nothing?
If I walk out of here with dowsing rods I know that there are water pipes leading from my house to the street and that there are water mains and sewers bordering all the roads. And as soon as I get such a knowledge or hint of water the ideomotor effect kicks in and I twitch the rods subconsciously. If I go to a greensward in the local park and the rods twitch do I dig up that part of the park to check, and then all the rest of the park to see whether that spot is unique?
For a proper test you need an area where there is no clue to the presence of water, a way of checking the dowser's results, a person to set up all the right conditions, and (to ensure double-blindness) a second person, who was not involved in the setting-up, to observe and record.
Do you now see why casual cases of 'Go out and try it!' often work whereas trials under proper conditions never do? And why RATTER15's results will mean nothing?
-- answer removed --
Wrongn3umber and daisya - of course, science can't explain everything. But before it can try to explain any phenomenon it must establish that the phenomenon is real. In the case of dowsing there is no evidence that can be pursued, investigated and developed into a new chunk of knowledge.
If there were, science would be excited, as it always is when a new branch of knowledge emerges.
If there were, science would be excited, as it always is when a new branch of knowledge emerges.
Well. Chakka, the idea of trying it where you know there's something (e.g., me and my culvert) is to see if it works at all for you. By all means go to a greensward park. or any other open area, and if you get a reaction, follow it. If, eventually, it leads you to a man-hole cover, fire mains outlet, street water c0ck or whatever, then 'nuff sed.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles99 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles105 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles106 mins ago
I Am Supposed To To What I Am Told
Body & Soul181 mins ago
ChatterBank186 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.