Water Divining

[naomi24]

I’ve just been listening to ‘The Bottom Line’ on Radio 4 where the guests were the vice president of CH2M Hill, the CEO of Veolia Water, and the CEO of Anglian Water, who all said that water diviners are used within their respective industries. One said if he hadn’t seen it with his own eyes, he would never have believed it works. Listen to the last few minutes of the programme from about 27.14.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b036w3b6

Your thoughts?

[mibn2cweus]

//How the heck did "Shirt" become "Sugar" unless i've had to much tonight which i'm pretty sure i didn't//

'shirt' minus the 'r' spells 'sugar' here in the magical wonderland of AB. ;o)

[pixie373]

No, Kramer. I don't believe anything 100% until it is proven to be true. Certainly not a sheep!

[THECORBYLOON]

I agree that if folk think there is a possibility something is true, they are more likely to disbelieve alternatives. I mind on seeing a programme where someone correctly guessed a card picked at random from a pack of cards. This was done in front of a large group of magicians who were then asked how it was done and they suggested various complicated techniques. The same was done in front of young schoolchildren and when asked, they suggested the pack was made up of all the same cards, which was the simple but correct answer. Another example that comes to mind is a filmed experiment involving mind control. A subject aproaches the camera and the screen went blank. The folk conducting the experiment said it was proof of mind control. What had happened was the person had come close to the camera, reached behind it to disconnect the power supply and then re-connected it. In both examples the experts looked for a complicated answer when a simple one was the correct one.

[jim360]

Well in answer to that last question Naomi, it comes down to how reliable you think eyewitness evidence is. I don't think they are misrepresenting anything, but it seems likely that they have misinterpreted what they saw -- that they are subject to all of the usual flaws and human biases that have to be accounted for when it comes to considering eyewitness evidence.

[Kramer21]

"Let's dissect that...
"angry" - your post (the one I reacted to) is LOADED with anger.
"incoherent"

LOL, "Loaded with anger"? Maybe you have some kind of problem as i have a rule never to socialise online and off when in a bad mood.

"which bit didn't you understand? "
Just the beginning, middle and end to be honest, once these areas are cleared up i'm sure this will then leave the communication highway crisp, clear and ready for coherent communications

[naomi24]

Jim, so three intelligent and highly successful men are deluded? That's what you're saying, isn't it?

[Kramer21]

Sorry pixie i got the meaning of your post wrong

[pixie373]

They are wrong. People are. Read my post and then Kramer's interpretation of it. Couldn't be more illogical.

[pixie373]

No problem, Kramer. Proved my point to Naomi! :-)

[Kramer21]

Which point was that pixie? Anyway yep wires get crossed sometimes on the net especially when you're debating with incoherent cretins ( I don't mean you at all) but i'm off to put some ice on my head and retire for the night so good evening.

[naomi24]

Pixie, I'm not with you. Which point?

[pixie373]

Good night, kramer

[Answerprancer]

Wow - if this is you being not 'in a bad mood' I'd hate to meet you in a dark alley!

[naomi24]

Bedtime for me, I think. Goodnight all.

[Answerprancer]

Night night Naomi.

[pixie373]

Naomi, just that it is easy to read into something that might not be there. Especially if you have a preference for a particular answer to prove that you're right. I'm sure those three men are highly intelligent. They are not infallible. And if the scientific evidence doesn't back them up, i believe, at the moment, they are fooling themselves.

[jim360]

Well, if these three "highly intelligent, successful men" are deluded, they wouldn't be the first.

Exhibit A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs#Health_issues

I don't think it's fair to say that they are deluded either. Or perhaps it is. I don't know, I haven't met them and discussed it. But ultimately it's a case of, on the one hand you have some eyewitness evidence that is subject to all the usual human flaws. And on the other hand you have several scientific studies spread over decades that have all drawn a blank.

All humans are notoriously bad at doing the old Morpheus trick of seeing providence where there is only coincidence. No-one seems capable of interpreting chance events properly -- and so otherwise intelligent men gamble away all their wealth, etc.

As best can be seen from the experiments I and others have mentioned, dowsing is indistinguishable from random chance. That means, sadly, that it will always have its followers and believers and practitioners, as you only need to get lucky a few times in a row to believe that you have a genuine ability. That, coupled with confirmation bias (in this case, by overlooking all the times they've failed to find water by dowsing), and you have something that will never go away.

I suppose I'm at the risk of being accused of a confirmation bias myself, by effectively rejecting all the personal accounts here. I think I'm safe of this, because hopefully I'm rejecting evidence on the basis of whether or not it is sound, rather than because it contradicts me. The test of that, I think, will have to wait until an experiment comes along that does show dowsing to be better than chance.

[jim360]

Oh, and good night.

[mibn2cweus]

If anyone's arrived at this thread whilst dowsing for 'sugar' . . . you've struck the mother lode!

Enough with the monkey business . . . or not >
http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shermer_the_pattern_behind_self_deception.html