dowsing verses sceince

I just finished watching NBC news and the story was on scanners at airports. It seems that the airports are dropping the puffing machines which are supposed to detect explosives. According to the story"the machines weren't reliable." So much for perfect science. May as well have a dowser there. It could also provide a job for some one. Ha ha P.S. I like Fox news. Jimmygoat

Don't even suggest that.  The price of coat hangers will go through the roof !!!

Well, you can watch Fox News and get the truth.... OR, you can watch the others and get Brainwashed.   

Well, you can watch Fox News and get the truth.... OR, you can watch the others and get Brainwashed.   

Got that right.

So much for perfect science.

There's a huge difference between perfect science, imperfect science and imaginary hokum.

Perfect science is demonstrating the chemical properties of water.
Imperfect science is estimating the number of people living in India.
Imaginary hokum is posting a map on this forum to which Art will respond, 100% of the time, that contained therein is some sort of cache or significant treasure.

Detecting explosives based on airborne microparticles is conceptually sound, but we may not have the tools to realize it, just yet (if ever).
Detecting explosives based on waving around bent wires that interact with scientifically baseless "supernatural forces" is not remotely the same thing. and has nothing to do with any kind of science; perfect, imperfect or otherwise.

So much for perfect science.

There's a huge difference between perfect science, imperfect science and imaginary hokum.

Perfect science is demonstrating the chemical properties of water.
Imperfect science is estimating the number of people living in India.
Imaginary hokum is posting a map on this forum to which Art will respond, 100% of the time, that contained therein is some sort of cache or significant treasure.

Detecting explosives based on airborne microparticles is conceptually sound, but we may not have the tools to realize it, just yet (if ever).
Detecting explosives based on waving around bent wires that interact with scientifically baseless "supernatural forces" is not remotely the same thing.

LSMorgan,
If dowsing is so imaginary to you then why did you start 2 topics in the dowsing forum regarding a water search and asking for someone to dowse for an overlooked "gem" from a list of outdated website domains?
Jon

LSMorgan,
If dowsing is so imaginary to you then why did you start 2 topics in the dowsing forum regarding a water search and asking for someone to dowse for an overlooked "gem" from a list of outdated website domains?
Jon

If you were bright enough to comprehend the answer, you wouldn't have needed to ask that question.

LSMorgan,
If dowsing is so imaginary to you then why did you start 2 topics in the dowsing forum regarding a water search and asking for someone to dowse for an overlooked "gem" from a list of outdated website domains?
Jon

If you were bright enough to comprehend the answer, you wouldn't have needed to ask that question.

You're saying that dowsing is imaginary hokum right?
I don't believe it is.
Jon

You're saying that dowsing is imaginary hokum right?
I don't believe it is.
Jon

I'm sure you don't 'believe' it's false, however, you (nor anyone else) will ever be able to demonstrate it's a credible thing. You may tell stories about how dowsing works for you, about all the successes you've had with it but when put to the test, dowsing won't live up to the standards rational people maintain... It's no different than belief in the tooth fairy, reading tea leaves, Sasquatch, Ouija boards or anything else. Believe whatever the hell you want, but that doesn't make it credible and in believing in such hokum, says a lot more about you than it does about the ability of dowsing to do anything substantive. 

Imaginary hokum is posting a map on this forum to which Art will respond, 100% of the time, that contained therein is some sort of cache or significant treasure.

That's funny 'cos it's true.  

Sorry fellow treasure hunters•   Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


These trolls feed off the reactions of their victims because "their agenda is to take delight in causing trouble". Media coverage and controversy

No, actually, it's NOT true, and I believe you know it. You just want to make fun of somebody to make yourself feel bigger. That's not just pathetic, but flat out sick!

Didn't your mother ever teach you that if you don't have anything nice to say, not to say anything at all?

Now, for the love of all that is good, get the heck out of here. I think I can speak for many on this board. Shut up already. Go to another forum. You're not wanted here.

Anyone agree?

An awfully sensitive one ... 

No, actually, it's NOT true, and I believe you know it. You just want to make fun of somebody to make yourself feel bigger. That's not just pathetic, but flat out sick!

Didn't your mother ever teach you that if you don't have anything nice to say, not to say anything at all?

Now, for the love of all that is good, get the heck out of here. I think I can speak for many on this board. Shut up already. Go to another forum. You're not wanted here.

Anyone agree?

Reactions like this are the manifestation of cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions. Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying. It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

People are biased to think of their choices as correct, despite any contrary evidence. This bias gives dissonance theory its predictive power, shedding light on otherwise puzzling irrational and destructive behavior.

People who believe in dowsing or other 'magical thinking' types of things have the innate capacities for logic native to any functional, sane human being. They are unique, though, in their ability to compartmentalize this basic logic so it doesn't conflict with something they 'want to believe in' in spite of that thing (in this case, dowsing) being contradictory to the very same precepts of logic that keeps them from drinking bleach or eating from the toilet...

When they are confronted about these irrational beliefs with rational strains of logic and they start to realize they cannot defend their 'beliefs' with reason, they usually lash out or demand the person be silenced so they can continue on with the delusion without inciting those uncomfortable feelings of dissonance that arise whenever they're forced to answer for the fallacy of it all.

You're saying that dowsing is imaginary hokum right?
I don't believe it is.
Jon

I'm sure you don't 'believe' it's false, however, you (nor anyone else) will ever be able to demonstrate it's a credible thing. You may tell stories about how dowsing works for you, about all the successes you've had with it but when put to the test, dowsing won't live up to the standards rational people maintain... It's no different than belief in the tooth fairy, reading tea leaves, Sasquatch, Ouija boards or anything else. Believe whatever the hell you want, but that doesn't make it credible and in believing in such hokum, says a lot more about you than it does about the ability of dowsing to do anything substantive.  

Well, I feel that you or anyone else will never be able to demonstrate why dowsing does NOT work.
You are surrounded by more believers than non believers on this forum.
I feel dowsing is credible to me. I believe the movements of the dowsing instruments are telling me the truth just as an optical instrument reveals details to my eyes of closer/further objects or as a radio receiver brings sounds to my ears.
Thanks for giving me permission to believe what I want. I did'nt get where I am in life worrying about what people think of me.
Since we all have the freedom of thought, we also have the freedom of action.
Without free will, we would all be machines.
I feel that dowsing has given resonable grounds for belief based on reports from the people who have gone into the field and posted the results of the dowse.
Jon

Well, I feel that you or anyone else will never be able to demonstrate why dowsing does NOT work.

That's called "asking someone to prove a negative". Even so, dowsing has been shown to "not work" every time its been tested with neutral parties present.

The most recent one I know of is this.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/_VAasVXtCOI" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/_VAasVXtCOI</a>

Naturally, whenever you show something like this to dowsers, they will fabricate some excuse as to why the outcome made them look so foolish- perhaps the containers interfered with the magical dowsing powers, or maybe the tentpoles did, or maybe the stars weren't aligned right, or perhaps there was something about the building next door that caused the test to not work... Ultimately, at the end of the day, no matter where or how the test is conducted, when the cameras are rolling, the result is always the same as you see in the end of that video. A group of kooks wandering around with confused looks on their faces, sincerely wondering why their dowsing didn't live up.

You choose to 'believe'. OK, fine. "Believe" all you wish. I've never questioned whether or not dowsers 'believe' in what they are saying. They clearly do.

Well, I feel that you or anyone else will never be able to demonstrate why dowsing does NOT work.

That's called "asking someone to prove a negative". Even so, dowsing has been shown to "not work" every time its been tested with neutral parties present.

The most recent one I know of is this.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/_VAasVXtCOI" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/_VAasVXtCOI</a>

Naturally, whenever you show something like this to dowsers, they will fabricate some excuse as to why the outcome made them look so foolish- perhaps the containers interfered with the magical dowsing powers, or maybe the tentpoles did, or maybe the stars weren't aligned right, or perhaps there was something about the building next door that caused the test to not work... Ultimately, at the end of the day, no matter where or how the test is conducted, when the cameras are rolling, the result is always the same as you see in the end of that video. A group of kooks wandering around with confused looks on their faces, sincerely wondering why their dowsing didn't live up.

You choose to 'believe'. OK, fine. "Believe" all you wish. I've never questioned whether or not dowsers 'believe' in what they are saying. They clearly do.

Well, maybe the right individuals have not come along yet to do a public demonstration.
Some people perform well under the pressure of public performances and some don't.
I've played guitar since the mid 70's and can play some very complicated classical pieces from memory
in the comfort of my home. But when I take myself out of my comfort zone and play for my family or friends around the holidays it's a bit shaky at first but it all works out. Dowsing is not any different. People practice it in private, figure out what works for them, take it outside to their test site, have to make adjustments but eventually get used to being on that land, then they venture out to a real site and need to acclimatize, then do their dowsing procedure. I all the years I've been dowsing I still have to get comfortable with the surroundings of a new field search. Only then can I feel truly confident in continuing my dowsing procedure.
Jon

A 10 year Dowsing Test by the German government beats the heck out of a 2 minute clip made by who..

http://twm.co.nz/dowsing_jse_com.html
http://www.water-diviner.com/articles3.htm
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_a_water_dowser_work
M   Water Dowsing   

________________________________________
WATER DOWSING IN ARID REGIONS:
REPORT ON A TEN YEAR GERMAN GOVERNMENT PROJECT (1)
From the Journal of Scientific Exploration
Stanford University Stanford, Ca.
Stanford, Ca. USA , March 27, 1995
 In an article published in the current issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Scientific Exploration, a science journal with the editorial offices at Stanford University, Professor Hans-Dieter Betz, a physicist at the University of Munich, presents the results of a German government sponsored program to test and apply dowsing methods to locate water sources in arid regions. This ten year project involved over 2000 drillings in Sri Lanka, Zaire, Kenya, Namibia, Yemen and other countries and is thus the most ambitious experiment with water dowsing ever carried out.
 While an adequate water supply is not a major problem in most industrialized nations, it is estimated that water pollution is responsible for some 80% of all diseases in Third World countries. Lack of high quality drinking water affects approximately two billion people on a worldwide scale and is a problem that is growing, according to the United Nations.
 The enormity of this problem led the German government to initiate a long range program via the GTZ(Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zussammenarbeit or German Association for Technical Cooperation) to explore innovative water detection methods in arid regions. Motivated by both the high cost and modest success rate of purely conventional hydrogeological methods, the GTZ project teamed geological experts, experienced dowsers and a scientific group led by Professor Betz to monitor and evaluate the results.
 The outcome was striking. An overall success rate of 96% (by dowsers) was achieved in 691 drillings in Sri Lanka. Based on geological experience in that area, a success rate of 30-50% would be expected from conventional techniques alone.
 But the overall success rate is not the only indication that the dowsing phenomenon is of considerable practical use. According to Betz, what is both puzzling but enormously useful, is that in hundreds of cases the dowsers were able to predict the depth of the water source and the yield of the well to within 10 to 20 percent. We carefully considered the statistics of these correlations, and they far exceeded lucky guesses

I get a kick out the good-natured fellow at 1:00 in the video.  He got one out of six, and attributed that to God having a laugh.


I'm not sure if that is in The Big Book of Dowsing Excuses, or not.  It may show up in a future edition.  

~Saturna~

I get a kick out the good-natured fellow at 1:00 in the video.  He got one out of six, and attributed that to God having a laugh.

.

I get a kick out of the dowsers who located water at 96% of the places they Dowsed and drilled.  Also the fact that they were within 20% of the Yield that they dowsed. Also of great interest is the fact that using conventional techniques they did not even come close to random chance rules…
If anyone wants to know how this trick movie was made just put a bar magnet under the container with the water in it…Skeptics trick 101…Art

[Carroll]

A 10 year Dowsing Test by the German government beats the heck out of a 2 minute clip made by who..

It wasn't a credible test.

Carroll: Further evidence for dowsing has been presented by the Deutsche Gesellschaft f E Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) [the German Society for Technical Co-operation] sponsored by the German government. They claim, for example, that in some of their water dowsing efforts they had success rates above 80% "results which, according to responsible experts, could not be reached by means of classical methods, except with disproportionate input." Of particular interest is a report by University of Munich physicist Hans-Dieter Betz, "Water Dowsing in Arid Regions: Report on a Ten-Year German Government Project," published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration in 1995. (This is the same Betz who, with J.L. König, authored a book in 1989 on German government tests proving the ability of dowsers to detect E-rays.) The report covers a ten-year period and over 2000 drillings in Sri Lanka, Zaire, Kenya, Namibia, Yemen and other countries. Especially impressive was an overall success rate of 96 percent  achieved in 691 drillings in Sri Lanka. "Based on geological experience in that area, a success rate of 30-50 percent would be expected from conventional techniques alone," according to Betz.  "What is both puzzling yet enormously useful is that in hundreds of cases the dowsers were able to predict the depth of the water source and the yield of the well to within 10 or 20 percent. We carefully considered the statistics of these correlations, and they far exceeded lucky guesses."

Betz ruled out chance and the use of landscape and geological features by dowsers as explanations for their success. He also ruled out "some unknown biological sensitivity to water." Betz thinks that there may be "subtle electromagnetic gradients" resulting from fissures and water flows which create changes in the electrical properties of  rock and soil. Dowsers, he thinks, somehow sense these gradients in a hypersensitive state. "I'm a scientist," says Betz,"and those are my best plausible scientific hypotheses at this point....we have established that dowsing works, but have no idea how or why."

There are some puzzling elements to Betz's conclusions, however. Most of his claims concern a single dowser named Schröter. Who observed this dowser or what conditions he worked under remain unknown. Betz is a physicist and what knowledge he has of hydrogeology is unknown. Furthermore, Betz's speculation that dowsers are hypersensitive to subtle electromagnetic gradients does not seem to be based upon scientific data. In any case, the hypothesis was not tested and I am not sure how one would go about testing such a claim. At the very least, one would expect that geological instruments would be able to detect such "electromagnetic gradients."

When others have done controlled tests of dowsers, the dowsers do no better than chance and no better than non-dowsers (Vogt and Hyman; Hyman; Enright 1995, 1996; Randi 1995). Some of Betz's data are certainly not scientific, e.g., the subjective evaluations Schröter regarding his own dowsing activities. Much of the data is little more than a report that dowsing was used by Schröter and he was successful in locating water. Betz assumes that chance or scientific hydrogeological procedures would not have produced the same or better results. It may be true that in one area they had a 96% success rate using dowsing techniques and that  "no prospecting area with comparable sub-soil conditions is known where such outstanding results have ever been attained." However, this means nothing for establishing that dowsing had anything to do with the success. Analogous sub-soil condition seems to be an insufficient similarity to justify concluding that dowsing, rather than chance or use of landscape or geological features, must account for the success rate.

Betz seems to have realized that without some sort of testing, reasonable people would not accept that it had been established that dowsing is a real phenomenon based upon the above types of data. He then presents what he calls "tests" to establish that dowsing is real. The first test involves Schröter again. A Norwegian drilling team dug two wells and each failed to hit water. The dowser came in and allegedly not only hit water but predicted the depth and flow. Apparently, we have the dowser's own word on this. In any case, this is not a test of dowsing, however impressive it might seem.

In the second test, Betz asserts that dowsers can tell how deep water is because "the relevant biological sensations during dowsing are sufficiently different to allow for the required process of distinction and elimination." He has no evidence for this claim. In any case, in this "test" Schröter again is asked to pick a place to dig a well and again he is successful. This time his well is near a well already dug and known to be a good site. Betz claims that there were some geological formations that would have made the dowser's predictions difficult, but again this was not a scientific test of dowsing.

The third test was a kind of contest between the dowser and a team of hydrogeologists. The scientific team, about whom we are told nothing significant, studied an area and picked 14 places to drill. The dowser then went over the same area after the scientific team had made their choices, and he picked 7 sites to drill. (Why they did not both pick the same number of sites is not explained.) A site yielding 100 liters per minute was considered good. The hydrogeologists hit three good sources; the dowser hit six. Clearly, the dowser won the contest. This test does not prove anything about dowsing, however. Nevertheless, I think Herr Schröter should knock on James Randi's door and be allowed to prove his paranormal powers under controlled conditions. If he is as good as he and Betz say he is, he should walk away a very rich man.

Betz has written a very long report, which is little more than a testimonial to the paranormal dowsing powers of Herr Schröter and a reiteration of the claims made for the Barn study. He would have done better to have set up a controlled, double-blind experiment with the dowser, one which does not allow the dowser himself to determine the conditions of the experiment and one which did not have as many uncontrollable variables as those rampant in the ten-year project.

In short, that was the furthest thing from a 'scientific study' you could possibly imagine.

In my initial study of the paranormal,  I tried dowsing .  After my wife hid my wedding ring, I found it 9 times out of 10, so personally I have no doubt that the ability exists..  Because of this success / phase, the next step was made in the study of the paranormal..

I fully realize that this could not be considered as a double blind  etc etc test, but frankly, for my edification, purpose, I could care less since it worked almost to perfection.

Also Carl,  posted " Yes, I can dowse, but I just never found a need for it".

Don Jose de La Mancha

In my initial study of the paranormal,  I tried dowsing .  After my wife hid my wedding ring, I found it 9 times out of 10, so personally I have no doubt that the ability exists..  Because of this success / phase, the next step was made in the study of the paranormal..
I fully realize that this could not be considered as a double blind  etc etc test, but frankly, for my edification, purpose, I could care less since it worked almost to perfection.

That is the correct way to find out if dowsing will work for you…If you believe in old (1852) divination’s you will never be able to enjoy the benefits of dowsing..Art