Divining rods, oy vey!

[Dan Hintz]

How many here watch American Woodshop with Scott Phillips? Anyone catch the episode a few weeks back where he used (in all seriousness) a pair of divining rods to determine where his water lines were? He was digging post holes for an archway/pergola.

I was stunned... here we have a fun show with some useful techniques being taught, only to be sideswiped with such bunk. My uncle tried to teach me divining when I was much younger, and although the science behind it sounded plausible to some degree, even at that young age I felt something just wasn't right. Time and time again divining has been proven in double blind tests to be pure hokem, yet people still swear by it. Prior knowledge of line location was the major factor in affecting the rods (i.e., it's the user, like the horse who could do math), consciously or not.

All of that aside, what bugged me the most was his suggestion, nay, his flat out statement that divining would help you track down your water mains and avoid punching through them. I can see someone who has no clue where their water mains are getting out there with a post digger and going to town. Gusher city...

[jim mills]

Funny thing...My brother built a house on a acreage about 25 yrs ago and the well driller (a large reputable local company) "witched" (is that the term?) for water before he dug. Said "plenty of water here, and not too deep either". Sure enough, 60' of drilling later and he hit water. Well still flows today! Now how can you argue with that?!?!?!? ;)

[Ryan Hellmer]

Yeah the "science" behind divining. Sheesh. As for the well driller, what part of the country? Around here you could drill a hole anywhere and hit water in 60 feet. Move 300 miles to the west and it's closer to 600 (and more in many places). Go to Louisianna and you can't set a fencepost without hitting water. If you want to find your lines, call the local dig safe program, but even then, use some common sense.

[lowell holmes]

Dan,

I've seen it work. Two bent welding rods were used. They crossed over each other as they passed over the line.

[John Coloccia]

A friend of mine showed me how to make a diving rod with a couple of tubes and some bent welding wire. He was the guy who replaced my septic tank, by the way. Anyhow, we used these rods all over the lower part of my property to trace the pipe all the way from the septic tank down to the leech field. We even found the individual pipes that made up the leech field.

A couple of weeks later, I spoke with the old owner of the house, and I told him what we did and how we tracked everything down with divining rods. At that point he informed me that when he first moved in, the area were we "found" all the pipes was overgrown with bushes and trees, and that the leech field was 100 feet away, way on the other side of the clearing. We had a good hearty chuckle and my world made sense again :)

[Harry Niemann]

Do you suppose this might work to find nails in used lumber?

[Dan Friedrichs]

What a sad state our science education is in in this country when otherwise intelligent people can't fathom that this is nothing but "witchcraft". It's really disappointing to hear that Mr. Phillips believes it.

[John M Wilson]

I had a friend who used a special divining rod hooked up with a bleeder resistor. When hooked up in series (or maybe parallel) it could detect buried hot dogs. Sadly, he forgot to detension it one night, and the resulting static charge buildup ruined it. Otherwise, I would supply pictures...

[Dan Hintz]

I had a friend who used a special divining rod hooked up with a bleeder resistor. When hooked up in series (or maybe parallel) it could detect buried hot dogs. Sadly, he forgot to detension it one night, and the resulting static charge buildup ruined it. Otherwise, I would supply pictures...
Ouch... that chuckle snort now has a piece of taco meat lodged into a nasal cavity. That'll teach me to eat lunch while reading a thread such as this... meh, maybe not.

[Jeff Bartley]

Dan,
I've also seen this work. In a former career (just north of you in Baltimore) I worked for a Geotech engineering firm. While there I would go out with the drillers to log and interept the borings. The drillers we used always walked the site with the rods before putting the drill bit in the ground. Time and time again they found utility lines that weren't marked, or were marked in the wrong place.
I've also seen this topic cause some heated arguements....one young engineer (at a different firm) practically got red-faced mad he was so adamant that this was bunk!
Now, I'm not trying to argue, I'm just saying that I've seen it in action.
As for an explanation I can only offer this: soil density and the interaction between the magnetic pole and two metal rods. Can I prove this? No. But may be someone here can add some objective science to this topic....people are too quick to dismiss things which they can't explain as 'witchcraft'. Remember the scientific method!

[Dan Friedrichs]

The scientific method has repeatedly been used to discredit the validity of water witching. Scientists have done blinded trials where they ask "expert" dosers to locate hidden lines, and none have ever been able to find the lines more accurately than chance would predict. A few individual anecdotes about having personally seen it work means nothing.

The suggestion of "magnets" really frustrates me. Americans spend millions of dollars a year on pseudo-medicinal "cures" that are based on the "power of magnets" (eg - magnetic "healing bracelets", etc). None of these have any basis in fact whatsoever - but people have a specious understanding of the magnetic force, and are quick to credit it with things they don't understand.

[John Coloccia]

Dan,
I've also seen this work. In a former career (just north of you in Baltimore) I worked for a Geotech engineering firm. While there I would go out with the drillers to log and interept the borings. The drillers we used always walked the site with the rods before putting the drill bit in the ground. Time and time again they found utility lines that weren't marked, or were marked in the wrong place.
I've also seen this topic cause some heated arguements....one young engineer (at a different firm) practically got red-faced mad he was so adamant that this was bunk!
Now, I'm not trying to argue, I'm just saying that I've seen it in action.
As for an explanation I can only offer this: soil density and the interaction between the magnetic pole and two metal rods. Can I prove this? No. But may be someone here can add some objective science to this topic....people are too quick to dismiss things which they can't explain as 'witchcraft'. Remember the scientific method!

The problem is that no one ever remembers all the times that it doesn't work. All of the scientific studies I know of, and there have been some, show no effect beyond random chance. The reason there's no better explanation than witchcraft is that there's nothing at all to explain.

[Jeff Bartley]

Dan F.,
I wasn't talking about "magnets" I was referring to the magnetic field that surrounds the earth. And I'm not talking about water witching, only finding buried utilities.
Can you explain why this can't work?? If someone had never seen an airplane fly and they were shown an airplane they might argue that it's inconceivable that it could fly. But Bernoulli's principle easily explains how it works.
In our case here we just don't have an explanation. I've heard a lot of people say that 'so and so scientists' has proven that this doesn't work, but I've never seen one of these 'blinded trials'.
What I have seen is drillers refusing to drill where the boring was marked because their rods indicated something buried. And after a lot of arguing a backhoe was brought in and an old line was found...exactly where they said it would be. I didn't just see this once, I saw it work consistently over and over again.

[Charlie Barnes]

When I was a kid on our corn and pig farm back in eastern Illinois, we had to put down a new well quickly when our old one gave out. The "old man" that owned the drilling rig came out and "witched" for the new location with a forked branch from a peach tree. Unlike what I had seen on TV, he held the branch in his hands and pointed at his chest. He walked the yard and found a new location only about 30 feet from our old well that was "strong". Even at my young age, I thought this was a load of you know what. But he let me try it and I have to tell you that when you crossed over the area where we ended up putting our well, the pull on the branch was incredibly strong.

I'm an engineer now and try to avoid believing in things that can't be explained through science or reason. But I'll make an exception for this one. There is no reason I can see that it should work. All I know is that it did for me.

Charlie

P.S. - The new well had about twice the flow rate of the old one which has essentially stopped. Good for us and the pigs!

[John Coloccia]

How come it only works as anecdotes? It never works beyond luck in controlled environments. I just gave you a story above where it absolutely DIDN'T work, and everyone completely ignores it. In my case, we both tried it multiple times and the rods crossed "strongly" at exactly the same point for both of us, multiple times. The only thing under our feet was dirt and rocks, same as the rest of my property. I've gone back to try it again KNOWING that there was nothing there, and the rods didn't do anything at all. I think it's hocus pocus until someone does a controlled experiment to show that there's an effect...this has been tried and it always fails. Maybe it's like bigfoot...it only works when the pictures are fuzzy. :)

[Dan Hintz]

The suggestion of "magnets" really frustrates me. Americans spend millions of dollars a year on pseudo-medicinal "cures" that are based on the "power of magnets" (eg - magnetic "healing bracelets", etc). None of these have any basis in fact whatsoever - but people have a specious understanding of the magnetic force, and are quick to credit it with things they don't understand.
I tried explaining this to my grandfather, who was a big proponent of said bracelets... I never got through to him. The best "unscientific" blip I've seen on these was someone placing a paperclip against the bracelet and it holds. Then a couple of sheets of paper were placed between the bracelet and the paper clip... the clip fell right off. The magnetic field was so weak when distanced from the bracelet by only a few sheets of paper, it was pretty strong unscientific proof that no field of any significant strength would likely penetrate even the epidermis, let alone into the major bloodstream. Given the distance squared dropoff of magnetic field strength, well... you make the call.

But people want to believe...

[Lee Schierer]

I've seen it work also. When I installed my geothermal system 35+ years ago, I needed a second well. A well driller came out and said we would find water anywhere on my property. So he drilled a hole where it was convenient to get his rig to. Guess what we hit water at 28 feet, but it was barely a trickle and would not have worked as a supply well. He agreed to drill another hole at a location of my choice.

I had a man that was know for his ability to find water come to my property. He had never been there before. He located my septic tank and the leach field and also indicated there was a water vein across one part of the yard. He had never been in my yard before and had no knowledge of where the septic tank lines and downspout drain lines were. He put four stakes in the ground about 18" apart and said to drill there. The driller hit water at 26' and couldn't pump it dry with a 1 Hp submersible pump.

My wife blind folded me and wandered me around the yard for about 10 minutes and then taking me over the spot he marked several times. Each time she did, the two bent wires I was holding would cross and then open back up as we moved away from the spot. I don't pretend to understand it, but I have seen it work.

I also know that the Marines used bent metal rods in Viet Nam to locate underground tunnels that the Viet Cong had dug.

[Jerome Hanby]

I think trying to explain dowsing scientifically is absurd. However it could be explained psychology. Operating the rods could serve to focus the attention and a subconscious recognition of some trait of the ground could trigger the "slip" to let the rods cross. That would explain why some old (read experienced) codger is the one it always seems to work for and why some fabricated study wouldn't work (no time for any tell tale signs to have developed).

On the other hand people believe all kinds of crap from their chance of winning a lottery to invisible men that live in the sky...

[Dave Anderson NH]

I thought I'd throw a bit of a red herring in here in response to Jeff's comment about Bernoulli's principle. If this explains why an airplane "lifts" based on differrential airflow, then why doesn't a plane flying upside down crash into the ground?:D:p

[Dan Hintz]

James Randi has a (still unclaimed) $1,000,000 prize for anyone who can conclusively prove that such things work... according to Wikipedia (which I had to use as I haven't read his book, but I follow his work), he "devotes 19 pages to comprehensive double-blind tests done in Italy which yielded results no better than chance". The fact that some dowsers prefer a specific type of tree to make their divining rods while others can make it "work" with nothing more than a coat hanger yet again lends a sense of "bogusality" (yeah, I just made that word up) to it all.

When it works, everyone's happy. When it doesn't work, they'll say "You're not digging deep enough", or "it's only a general location, you need to look at places surrounding where I marked." Tough to prove them wrong, because once you find what you're looking for, you stop looking! When the general water table is known for an area, you have a much greater than 50/50 chance of hitting gold. Again, I gotta go back to the double blind tests that show it as pure hokum.

[Jacob Reverb]

Dan,

I've seen it work. Two bent welding rods were used. They crossed over each other as they passed over the line.

Same here. In fact, my Dad used the method to find the soil pipe between our house and the septic tank when I was growing up.

Not sure how it works, but it definitely seems to work.

[John Coloccia]

I thought I'd throw a bit of a red herring in here in response to Jeff's comment about Bernoulli's principle. If this explains why an airplane "lifts" based on differrential airflow, then why doesn't a plane flying upside down crash into the ground?:D:p

Actually, it's a good question. Bernoulli's law let's airplanes fly in the same sense that energy makes a clock work...it's somewhat true but not really. Aircraft wings produce lift because of different pressures created mostly by the wing's angle of attack. This is why fully symmetrical wings cand fly, and why flat bottom airfoils can fly upside down (the Citabria immediately comes to mind, and I can assure you it flies quite happily with sky under the wheels!). Flat plates fly perfectly well too, as would a brick given enough speed and a way to stabilize it. :)

[Dan Hintz]

John,

To your point about bricks flying... wasn't one of the recent bombers defined that way, as a flying brick? If it wasn't for the electronic control systems making mods to the control surfaces something like 100 times a second, it would never make it off of the ground. It is designed to be inherently unstable, which means its maneuvering capability is greatly enhanced.




Also, I forgot about this story, but find it very apropos:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/middleeast/04sensors.html
The sensor turned out to be nothing but a high-tech dowsing rod (or less)... but they swear it works!

[Andrew Pitonyak]

The problem is that no one ever remembers all the times that it doesn't work.
Not true.... I remember fail to find some buried drain lines that I needed to dig up. Wished it had worked, would have saved me some digging.

As for magnets.. It is recommended that pregnant women NOT use electric blankets, even if they do not plug them in because the generated magnetic field may affect fetus growth. Not so problematic in adults, however; at least not at the levels obtained from an electric blanket. With a large enough magnet, I can kill a full sized grizzly bear; if I can convince him to hold still and I can figure out how to lift it and drop it on him.

[Dan Hintz]

With a large enough magnet, I can kill a full sized grizzly bear
A loose-leaf binder comes in handy during times like this... a mean paper cut can make them bleed to death.

[Belinda Barfield]

Well, I believe you gentlemen have established a reasonable level of bogusality. I'm waiting for you to establish a reasonable level of hokumality.

[Dan Hintz]

Well now that you've joined the fray, Belinda, we expect the hokum to increase exponentially :D

[John Coloccia]

John,

To your point about bricks flying... wasn't one of the recent bombers defined that way, as a flying brick? If it wasn't for the electronic control systems making mods to the control surfaces something like 100 times a second, it would never make it off of the ground. It is designed to be inherently unstable, which means its maneuvering capability is greatly enhanced.




Also, I forgot about this story, but find it very apropos:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/middleeast/04sensors.html
The sensor turned out to be nothing but a high-tech dowsing rod (or less)... but they swear it works!

Yes, we've been designing them unstable for some time now. It allows you to concentrate on things like payload, strength, speed, efficiency and stealth, without having to worry about someone actually having to control the thing. For a wonderful study on why aircraft fly, read "Stick and Rudder" by Wolfgang Langeweische ( I think I spelled that right!). Should be required reading for every pilot, though sadly I doubt it is. I was certainly strongly encouraged to read it.

Currently, the pilot is the weak link when considering maneuverability. We can only pull so many Gs for so long without passing out our modern aircraft can easily exceed that. Top class aerobatic aircraft are routinely stressed to +-10gs, but fir very short periods of time. I can comfortably handle around +6...at least I could when I was doing it every week. 6 is pretty intense. I can't do but just a little over -1 before I get VERY uncomfortable. +-10 is absolutely insane, even for short periods if time. I can't even imagine what that must be like. I think my eyeballs would pop.

[Dan Friedrichs]

I've heard a lot of people say that 'so and so scientists' has proven that this doesn't work, but I've never seen one of these 'blinded trials'.

Take a look at the wikipedia article on the topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing

There are several links to excellent studies like you requested, all of which prove that it's nothing but chance.


The problem is one of probability - you can blindfold yourself and wander around your yard (like Lee S. apparently did), but even if you do it for days on end and keep getting the same result, you aren't aware of the other person doing the same thing and consistently getting false results. In order to ascertain whether or not it actually "works", you need a large enough sample size, and even then, you can never be 100% sure. What the scientific establishment provides us is methods (like statistical analysis) that can tell us whether or not a result is significant. For instance, if you gave a new drug to 10 people, and all of them got better, did it work? You might say, "yes", but in reality, there was a chance that they would have all gotten better without the drug, a chance that placebo effect made them better, etc - without statistical analysis, you have no idea if the drug actually worked or not.

The same is true for dowsing, but even more complicated because of all the other factors (prediction effect, etc).

[jim mills]

FORE SALE: Divining rod, used, but fully tested and functional. $50 (comes with instructions)

[Larry Edgerton]

Just imagine the tadoo if he had brought up mental telepathy......

[John M Wilson]

All the true telepaths would claim that they saw it coming! :D

[Jerome Stanek]

I have found water lines and electric lines by divining. When the plumber was here to install my water line from the road to the house I had both marked and when the UPS came out to spot the lines I was right on the money. The plumber couldn't believe it. I also installed casework for CVS amd Revco pharmacy's that I would spot the electric lines for the electrician.

[anthony wall]

my son is a plumbing contractor in the u k and often uses this method with a couple of bent welding rods to locate water feed pipes and it works well for him and some of the men who work for him though it does not work for others.i watched him do it on a housing development one lunchtime when he and maybe a dozen or so men all tried it out,the ratio was about 50/50 between those that could and those that could not they were trying to find buried services that they all knew the position of,i also tried and the rods crossed over the exact position of the pipes and i have used it a few times since sucessfully,i have absolutely no idea why it works for some people and not for others but it does work

[Jeff Nicol]

This is one of those things that can create some of the disgust and lack of respect that has been discussed in another thread. I have owned and used metal detectors for 27 years and have used them to find things that I would have never thought I would find, from tiny pieces of lead shot to whole cars buried in the ground. The fact that they work still baffles my mind, but it is science and years of perfection of a machine that gives us the ability to believe and trust these machines. But along the way we all come face to face with something that makes no sense and we can't wrap our brains around it, but it happens right there in front of us and there is no good or logical explanation for it. So those who have open minds and the willingness to accept the unbelievable no matter how absurd or "Mystical" it may be, will reap the rewards of the event. But those who are always in the naysayer crowd and must have some sort of scientific settling of the issue will miss out on some things that could be truly amazing, there should be no fear of the unknown but a healthy curiosity. We can never know it all no matter how we try, and in many "Scientific" truths that are proven, many times have information that is entered into the equation that is skewed, or incomplete, thus making it "Junk" science. But if you can get enough to believe in the junk science it soon becomes the gospel, but is still wrong.

So with all that being said, in the years of my treasure hunting I have run into a few old timers who were dowsers and of course I was a non-believer until I watched them find buried cannon balls, old rifles, and other civil war artifacts in Georgia while I was stationed at Ft. Stewart. I became a believer, and not just because it was cool, but because it was real, but still baffling just the same. So this leads me to the fact that I read as much as I could find on it at the time (Early 1980's) and I made a few different sets of rods to see if I could get it to work. I did the standard tests with chunks of metal right on the surface of the ground and the rods would move as they passed over it. Then I had friends place items in the yard, like nails, coins, etc. I was able to find all but one nail that was pushed into the ground with just the head up, I also found an old beer can, a railroad spike and an old ax head! So any and all who feel that it can never work, have some faith in the weird and wild may be what will help you experience the unbelievable!

As God as my witness, fear not what you don't know,

Jeff

[John Coloccia]

As for magnets.. It is recommended that pregnant women NOT use electric blankets, even if they do not plug them in because the generated magnetic field may affect fetus growth. Not so problematic in adults, however; at least not at the levels obtained from an electric blanket. With a large enough magnet, I can kill a full sized grizzly bear; if I can convince him to hold still and I can figure out how to lift it and drop it on him.

I believe there is some POTENTIAL concern for electromagnetic fields, although I believe the concern is greater for potentially elevated temperatures. Still, these are different than just magnetic fields. Of course, magnetic fields and electric fields are really the same thing in one sense, but for these purposes it's not really the same. To explain why would be very long winded, but suffice it to say that a magnet can't power a cordless toothbrush. The kinds of electromagnetic fields they're talking about have significant E fields that extend beyond the device. A permanent magnet doesn't. They may also have changing electromagnetic fields, which is a whole new ballgame as well. This is probably not a satisfying answer, but without invoking even less satisfying math, I can't do any better (I know I can't because I've tried!) :) It's like trying to explain why you can't arrange a bunch of permanent magnets to create stable levitation. I can't explain it intuitively, but it's actually relatively obvious and direct consequence of Gauss's law.

I don't know of any consequences of static magnetic fields on the living tissue.

Now there ARE changing electromagnetic fields in power lines, and they certainly CAN be detected. There are devices out there that can detect the fields that extend out from power lines. You can get cheap versions of these things at Home Depot in the form of those touchless electrical detectors that are supposed to tell you if an outlet is live or not (I've had them and they don't work for me half the time so I don't trust them). You can also grab a flourescent lamp and go stand under some high tension power lines....watch the lamp light up...whoo hoo! The question is does any of this have enough of the right kind of energy to actually move metal rods, and the answer's no.

I've no doubt, though, that people can find underground power lines and pipes by other means. I can usually find basic bugs in someone else's code because I've seen enough bugs and enough code to have a good idea of how people normally code and the kinds of bugs that can result. I can go right to it and I'm right most of the time. If I spent a career digging, I would probably get a really great feel for where power lines and pipes are normally buried...I would start to notice things like possibly a slight difference in terrain of a wire, maybe asphalt is more prone to cracking, maybe it's lined up in a straight line from the street to an outside electrical box, etc etc. Over time, I would be very good at picking stuff like this out...my subconscious would anyhow, and the divining rods would be a wonderful way to get at that information.

I don't doubt that they can work, but so far the evidence points to a far more refined ability of humans rather than some unknown physical law.

[Dan Friedrichs]

So for those of you who believe in dowsing - what do you say to the scientists, who are trained in statistical analysis and experimental design, who have concluded that it's nothing but chance? Do you believe that your personal experiences with dowsing are somehow better experimental examples than those designed by experts?

I know that sounds snarky, but I'm quite serious.

What if it were, say, drugs, instead. You and all your friends are taking "magic pill #3" and experiencing great results (I dunno...weight loss or something....). Then a group of expert scientists designs a double-blind clinical trial to test the effectiveness of "magic pill #3" and their results conclusively demonstrate that "magic pill #3" does nothing at all. Wouldn't you feel silly to continue to advocate the wonders of "magic pill #3"?

How is it any different with dowsing?

[Bill Huber]

I don't know but after reading all of these post I am still not sure if I should or shouldn't de-tension my dowsing rods.:D

[Greg Peterson]

So this is the thread that is going to derail the "Should I buy a Mac" thread, huh?

We're moving on to divining rods. Okay.

Can I make my own dowsing rods or should I buy some Monster Dowsing Rods?

[Leigh Betsch]

I'd get te Japanese white steel rods. Both harder and easier to sharpen.

[Jim Koepke]

Can I make my own dowsing rods or should I buy some Monster Dowsing Rods?

I have made my own out of heavy iron wire. Not sure if one metal is supposed to work better than the other.

I do know from electronics classes that a stream running east and west can produce a measurable current by moving across the north and south magnetic fields of the earth.

For the longest time, Man could not explain how flight worked, that did not deter the animals and insects that could fly.

For a little longer, science could not explain how the bumble bee flew. That one almost deserves folk lore status as a mistake was made in calculations and one person decided it was not possible by the laws of aerodynamics for a bumble bee to fly. Since then, we have learned a lot about flight and most engineers will agree that no laws are in danger of being broken during the flight of the bumble bee.

Besides two great woodworking tool makers being in Fort Bragg, CA, there is a man with some different ideas on how electrical fields work. I do not recall his name nor do I know that he is still alive, but he had an idea of rotating electrons producing electric fields or something. Not sure if that could explain dowsing or not.

Just because we do not have full understanding of how something works, does not mean there isn't some energy or force guiding us.

jtk

[Dan Friedrichs]

Just because we do not have full understanding of how something works, does not mean there isn't some energy or force guiding us.



Sure. But in the case of dowsing, we KNOW that it doesn't work because repeated, blinded, well-designed experiments have shown that it is no more likely to work than chance.

[Jerome Stanek]

Well If the people setting up the experiment are blind then how do they know it doesn't work?

[Larry Edgerton]

[QUOTE=Jim Koepke;1725817Just because we do not have full understanding of how something works, does not mean there isn't some energy or force guiding us.

jtk[/QUOTE]

Exactly. It is an arrogance that is often in time proven wrong, that being that the current understanding of science is the final word. From the time of the world being flat people have scoffed at ideas that they do not understand and can not explain with what they know to be fact. But facts change don't they?

I prefer to not get all worked up about it and leave such things as a possibility that we may not fully be able to qualify at this time. Takes way less energy and makes absolutely no difference in my life.

[Bill Clark De]

wait ---there isn't any invisible men in space ????... by extension the world ain't going to end in Nov.???? (recalculating the date as i write)!!!!
Could it all be so simple then??? Perhaps Bumpuck . is actually the center of the universe and that would explain the magnetic pull... or not... Danger Will Robinson!!! The cynics of the world have awoke again....Oh yea of little faith !!!!

[Belinda Barfield]

Guess I shouldn't bring up the subject of leylines, huh?

Just a thought (I do have them occasionally) - in the studies did the scientists bring in a group of people who live on the land to test, or did they just use people who live in the city and work in labs all day? People who live on the land do have a different sense of nature and their environment. They tend to be more "in tune" with the earth. Perhaps those successful at dowsing and divining have a more open mind and spirit. A lot of results depend on belief - believe it or not. As others have said, just because we don't understand "it" or believe in "it" doesn't mean "it" isn't possible.

[Jeff Bartley]

Actually, I looked at the studies sited in Wiki and the first study from '87 was focusing on finding water within pipes in the basement of a barn, the goal of the more recent study was finding water within buried pipes.
What myself and others have described here (as was previously stated) is finding buried utilities, not water! And the tools used were metal rods, not the branch from some special tree. Comparing that experience to the studies in Wiki is apples to oranges.
So, we don't KNOW that it doesn't work.

[Greg Peterson]

We live in an analog world but possess a digital understanding of it.

I don't believe dowsing is real. Not saying that our understanding of the world is complete. I do however, find it unlikely that we've advanced our state of understanding the laws of nature to the point where we can hold anti-matter still for sixteen minutes yet are unable to effectively conduct a test to prove or disprove dowsing.

[Joe Angrisani]

....As others have said, just because we don't understand "it" or believe in "it" doesn't mean "it" isn't possible.

Isn't the corollary to that: "Just because one believes in 'it' doesn't means 'it' is true"? :D

[Belinda Barfield]

Isn't the corollary to that: "Just because one believes in 'it' doesn't means 'it' is true"? :D

True, very true.

[Dan Hintz]

Isn't the corollary to that: "Just because one believes in 'it' doesn't means 'it' is true"? :D
Are you trying to tell me the Easter Bunny isn't real? Sacrilege!

[Belinda Barfield]

Are you trying to tell me the Easter Bunny isn't real? Sacrilege!

I believe in Dan. Next you're going to try to tell me Dan isn't real!:eek:

[Mike Cruz]

Boy Dan, you really know how to stir the pot, don't you?

I've seen it work (believe me, very reluctantly) on underground wires. At my last house, we were having Invisible Fence install a doggie fence for us. Before digging the line in, the guy pulled out two of those metal markers with white flags on the end. He ripped off the flags, bent one end of each and started walking around the property. I just about fell out of my chair! I curiously (and cautously) approached him. Asked him, um, just what he was looking for. Underground wires, he replied. I scratched my head. He said, don't believe me? I've already found your main electric and cable lines, and pointed over his shoulder. Then a few minutes later, he kept passing over a spot in the back yard. He flagged it. Moved on, then kept coming back. I knew ther was an old electric line buried there (no longer power running through it) but how the $%&@ did he? I finally went out to let him know that he found an old line that went through there. He double checked with me that it wasn't live, and moved on. I didn't question him again...

[Greg Portland]

For those who think they can dowse or know someone who can go get yourself a $1M+ prize: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

Many dowsers have tried to win the prize and none of them have even gotten past the basic preliminary testing.

[Jason Merck]

Well since science has proven they don't work I guess I'll have to throw mine in the trash. Too bad, they have served me pretty well during my years in the underground utility construction business. But since there was an experiment done that absolutely proved they do not work I guess I have to ignore my past field experience with them.

[Joe Angrisani]

Well since science has proven they don't work I guess I'll have to throw mine in the trash. Too bad, they have served me pretty well during my years in the underground utility construction business. But since there was an experiment done that absolutely proved they do not work I guess I have to ignore my past field experience with them.

Take your field experience and go win the $1,000,000 prize.

Seriously. Why wouldn't you? Unless you couldn't.... ;)

[Chris Kennedy]

Well since science has proven they don't work I guess I'll have to throw mine in the trash. Too bad, they have served me pretty well during my years in the underground utility construction business. But since there was an experiment done that absolutely proved they do not work I guess I have to ignore my past field experience with them.

Science hasn't proven that they do not work. What has been shown by the various double-blind studies is that there is no significant difference between using divining rods and random chance. It is quite to the opposite -- the purveyors of divining rods are proclaiming that they work, but when rigorously tested, there is no significant difference between divination and guessing. It would be more to the point that diviners cannot adequately demonstrate that they work better than anecdotally.

For the record, I have no idea whether they work. I have never seen someone try to use them. And there is anecdotal evidence that certain people can effect the physical world in strange ways for no currently known reason (look up the Pauli effect).

Cheers,

Chris

[Tom Winship]

Funny this thread came up. I knew an old man at home when I was a kid who supposedly could "witch" for water with a forked stick. Hadn't thought about it much since then until a friend came up several weeks ago. Before leaving he went over and pulled some metal ones out of his trunk. I started walking across the yard with them and they crossed when I crossed a water line. Don't know if I influenced it or not, but as I say, funny this thread came up.

[Scott Shepherd]

So for those of you who believe in dowsing - what do you say to the scientists, who are trained in statistical analysis and experimental design, who have concluded that it's nothing but chance? Do you believe that your personal experiences with dowsing are somehow better experimental examples than those designed by experts?

I've not seen it in person or done it, so I have no opinion on if it works or not. However, I can think of a number of times in my lifetime that scientists have been very wrong about things.

I'd push it back the other way. Just because you can't prove it, doesn't mean it's not happening. Science isn't done understanding everything in the universe just yet. If we lived life based on what scientists tell us, we'd have a strange life.

Just a very recent example- the food pyramid. We've been told since I was a kid how that was the key to healthy living. Now they (scientists) say it's a bad thing. So yes, I would believe my own eyes over a scientist if I could support it in a level that proved to be accurate.

[Bruce Kohl]

A few years back I used to do some work for a couple of partners who were in the oil and gas business. One was a college trained geologist and the other an old roughneck who hadn't graduated from high school. At the time they were drilling deep gas wells in Texas, and when they were deciding where on a particular lease to drill they would visit the site together, the geologist with his seismic charts and graphs and the old timer with his witching sticks. The geologist would study his seismic data, and the old timer would roam the lease with his sticks in hand. They both believed fervently in their respective methods of selecting a well location, and together they would pick a site for the well. And darned if they didn't have fabulous success. More often than not the site selected would be the favorate of the old timer. These were very deep wildcat wells, so no guarantee of success. So while as an educated person I question the "science" of divining rods, based on this experience I've often wondered if there may be something to it.

[mickey cassiba]

As entertaining as this thread has been, I now have to toss in my two bits(inflation, ya know?). While I have witnessed dowsing in action, and followed up with a metal detector and confirmed the results, I am not equipped with the gift. Try as I might, I cannot make the rods cross, the branch dip, or what have you. Still and all, I have seen it work. And I have verified the results, both with a metal detector, and a shovel. An that's all I have to say about that.

[John Coloccia]

All I know is if I ever have to have work done and someone starts wandering around my property with rods, he's fired.

[anthony wall]

All I know is if I ever have to have work done and someone starts wandering around my property with rods, he's fired.
if everyone had this attitude we would still be wandering around wearing animal skins and making fire by rubbing sticks together.i assume it does not work for you just as it does not work for lots of people but that's no reason to condemn it out of hand, others feel just as strongly that it works just fine including me

[Mike Cruz]

Bruce, I go to the track to bet on the ponies. I look over the stats, check it based on speed and finishes and lineage and jockey and come up with what I think is the best possible outcome. When we bring along non horse/non race people, they pick out the pretty ones...they pick winners as often or MORE often than I do...

[Brian Ashton]

How many here believe in a god? If I hadn't read the first post I would say the conversation was about pretty much any such belief system that's been going on from time immortal. Can't prove it can't disprove it. There are still people that believe the earth is flat, even in the face of irrefutable evidence... Science can be such a wet blanket to a healthy fantasy life.

I'm positive there are unicorns, faeries and mermaids... Now prove me wrong... Even if you do I won't believe you...

There was a study recently released that found when the majority of people that have unsubstantiated beliefs (which basically means all of us have a little secret or two) are faced with strong evidence (often irrefutable) that proves what they believe is wrong it actually causes that person to retreat deeper into and hold on that belief system much tighter than before. It also caused them to try to find evidence (weak as it may be) to support their position as opposed to looking for the "truth".

Just like everything else on the internet this conversation will play out again in about 6 months.

Now where was I... Oh ya looking for Lilliput in my garden.

[Jason Merck]

Take your field experience and go win the $1,000,000 prize.

Seriously. Why wouldn't you? Unless you couldn't.... ;)

Joe, never said that I could. I'm not going to claim that it is 100% accurate, only that when I have needed them I have been successful more times then not. That being said, they certainly do not replace calling in to have the area located for existing utilities. Seems some people have better results than others too - the wands would never move for my foreman - same set in my hands would get good results. Our superintendent could dang near walk down a street and accurately map all the lines. What I'm saying is that from what I have experienced it does work for some people, maybe not enough to win a million but certainly well enough to keep production going.

[Greg Peterson]

I'm not going to claim that it is 100% accurate..,I have been successful more times then not...some people have better results than others...in my hands would get good results...could dang near walk down a street and accurately map all the lines...what I have experienced it does work for some people, maybe not enough to win a million but certainly well enough to keep production going.

So at best it is condition based? Works for some, not others? No one has 100% accuracy?

If folks want to believe in dowsing, so be it. Use to be that proving or disproving a matter was sufficient. Now they have to prove something is false and have to disprove it's true.

[Chris Mahmood]

Joe, never said that I could. I'm not going to claim that it is 100% accurate, only that when I have needed them I have been successful more times then not.

Randi only requires that you are consistently better than chance, you don't have to be anywhere near perfect.

[John Coloccia]

So at best it is condition based? Works for some, not others? No one has 100% accuracy?


Sounds an awful lot like guessing... :)

[Scott Shepherd]

Science can be such a wet blanket to a healthy fantasy life.

Or, science can be wrong or incomplete.

Have you seen the studies about dog's knowing when the owner is coming home, no matter what time the owner comes home? They have studied and studied that and to this day, as far as I know, they have not been able to figure out how a dog knows when you are coming home. Does that mean that it doesn't happen? No, it just means that there are things that science can't explain at this point in time.

Some of you seem to believe that science is over and done with and that we know it all and know all the answers. It's not, and we don't.

[Belinda Barfield]

In light of the ongoing discussion I read this today. New study anyone? Humans may possess a magnetic "sixth sense".

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/22/humans-may-have-magnetic-sixth-sense/?test=faces

[Jacob Reverb]

Some of you seem to believe that science is over and done with and that we know it all and know all the answers. It's not, and we don't.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

It reminds me of the way some atheists are just as reverential, evangelical and often more militantly intolerant of opposing views than the Bible-thumpingest Baptist they claim to be above.

As Donald Rumsfeld once famously said, "Absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence."

Just because I have never caught a fish in Crater Lake doesn't prove there are no fish in Crater Lake.

I think to truly approach a question "scientifically," the first thing you have to do is say, "I'll admit every possibility." Closed-mindedness is very un-scientific, IMHO. It stinks of prejudice, bias and subjectivity.

[John Coloccia]

Or, science can be wrong or incomplete.

Have you seen the studies about dog's knowing when the owner is coming home, no matter what time the owner comes home? They have studied and studied that and to this day, as far as I know, they have not been able to figure out how a dog knows when you are coming home. Does that mean that it doesn't happen? No, it just means that there are things that science can't explain at this point in time.

Some of you seem to believe that science is over and done with and that we know it all and know all the answers. It's not, and we don't.

Here's the problem, Scott. There's this pervasive feeling out there that everyone wants to show up the "smarty pants" scientists. No one said that science has the answer to everything right now. In fact, science has done particularly well in being flexible in the face of new evidence...incredibly well. It's certainly more accepting of new evidence than all here who won't consider what it means that controlled experiments show no effect. We're not the ones with the closed minds. These days, having an open mind is equated with a belief in magic. I don't believe in magic. Miracles? Sure. I don't see dowsing as miraculous.

Everyone misunderstands the scientist. Do you think for a second that if I thought there was ANYTHING at all to it that I wouldn't be doing experiments left and right to try and prove it? I would do everything I could to show that there is a real, physical effect, I would write a bunch of papers, and I would claim my Nobel prize. So would anyone else. That's why serious scientists are constantly doing experiments with things like this, telekinesis, telepathy etc etc. Any discovery in any of these areas would be of Nobel quality, and yet it never works when the experiment is sufficiently controlled.

As Joe has said, for anyone who feels there's something to it there's $1,000,000 waiting.

[Joe Angrisani]

It's funny that some people think a scientific approach is all about taking an opinion and sticking to it. It's not, folks. It's based on being able to repeat a result in controlled experimentation. If you can repeat it, it's fact. If you can't repeat it, it's opinion. Nobody is more willing to change their minds than scientists. But that change is never based on gut feeling. It's based on new evidence that can be tested, with consistent, repeatable results obtained using the scientific method.

That said, you'd think one of the 7,000,000,000 people on this planet could dowse with a high success rate under controlled conditions if dowsing was real. Zero out of a control group of seven billion?? That's pretty conclusive...


EDIT: You type too fast, John...

[Greg Peterson]

The conventional wisdom among laymen seems to be that science is a collection of corrupt, elitists that are only interested in obtaining grants to support their lifestyles.

The definition of scientific theory has been hijacked and now everything is being called into question by people whose motives are as questionable as they are reckless.

I will not apologize for believing that 2+2=4.

Not recognized is how competitive the scientific community is. Names and careers are made by challenging a theory and further refining our understanding of the natural world. In essences, these guys make names for themselves by going after other scientist. These guys often times have passionate disagreements and set forth to prove their point in a controlled and repeatable fashion.

And then their findings are submitted to their peers to see if any of them can take it apart. And don't think they don't want to shred someone else's idea to tatters. I think we give these guys too much credit as being a chummy community.

Just because dowsing has not be proven to not work to ones satisfaction does not mean it does work. But that is the climate we live in these days. You have to prove a negative.

You want to believe in dowsing, go right ahead. Just don't get upset when I doubt it's accuracy. In my world, 2+2 always equals 4.

[Jacob Reverb]

Just because dowsing has not be proven to not work to ones satisfaction does not mean it does work. But that is the climate we live in these days. You have to prove a negative.

Isn't it by definition impossible to prove a negative?

Isn't that like saying, "Everything I say is a lie"?

For example, I can swear up and down all day that there is no such thing as a ghost. Yet there are normal, rational people who honestly believe they have seen and experienced ghosts. Could it be that the people who have never seen ghosts simply a) don't see them because they've never happened to be in the same room with one; b) don't see them simply because their brain filters ghosts out as non-permissible "division by zero"; or c) don't see ghosts because they don't want to see ghosts?

Worthwhile reading here:

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/online/4435/the-scientific-method-or-lack-it

[Andrew Pitonyak]

So for those of you who believe in dowsing - what do you say to the scientists, who are trained in statistical analysis and experimental design, who have concluded that it's nothing but chance? Do you believe that your personal experiences with dowsing are somehow better experimental examples than those designed by experts?

I know that sounds snarky, but I'm quite serious.

What if it were, say, drugs, instead. You and all your friends are taking "magic pill #3" and experiencing great results (I dunno...weight loss or something....). Then a group of expert scientists designs a double-blind clinical trial to test the effectiveness of "magic pill #3" and their results conclusively demonstrate that "magic pill #3" does nothing at all. Wouldn't you feel silly to continue to advocate the wonders of "magic pill #3"?

How is it any different with dowsing?

The Placebo effect can be very positive (Depending on the disease/symptom).... I'm just saying.

[Chris Kennedy]

Isn't it by definition impossible to prove a negative?



It is possible to prove the negative in certain instances. It is going to depend on what the negation is. If I want to prove the negation of a universal statement (i.e. someone asserts something is _always_ the case), a single counterexample provides proof that the negation is true. More generally, I can assume that something is true, and show that this leads to a contradiction with established fact. Is there a general way to prove a negative? No -- there is no general way to prove everything.


Isn't that like saying, "Everything I say is a lie"?

This is different -- you cannot unambiguously assign a truth value to such a statement. This isn't proving a negative -- you've created a paradox.

Chris

[Phil Thien]

You and all your friends are taking "magic pill #3" and experiencing great results (I dunno...weight loss or something....).

LOL, #3 pills are so yesterday. We're all taking #7 and #8 pills these days, Dan.

I'm not sure how rods could work. Say you're walking around on someone's land. The rods cross at a certain point. You drill, and find water at (let's say) 60'.

Well, unless you found an underground pipe coming straight from China, it is unlikely that there wasn't water 10' away. Maybe (let's say for the sake of argument) at 65' or 70'. So why didn't the rods cross at that point? How do the rods know that, even though there is water at 65', they shouldn't cross because soon there will be water at 60'?

Are there sensitivity settings on the rods or something?

[Greg Peterson]

Phil,

Not only do the newer rods have a sensitivity setting, they also have settings for coax and fiber optic. One major manufacturer, who I am not at liberty to reveal, is soon to release a WiFi version. You'll be able to upload the results to Google Earth.

[Belinda Barfield]

Phil,

Not only do the newer rods have a sensitivity setting, they also have settings for coax and fiber optic. One major manufacturer, who I am not at liberty to reveal, is soon to release a WiFi version. You'll be able to upload the results to Google Earth.

Greg, do you know if the new and improved rods have a cup holder? Probably not as that might throw off the sensitivity if dowsing.

[Dennis Peacock]

Please be aware that this thread is closely being watched and is highly likely to being locked or removed.

[John Coloccia]

Isn't it by definition impossible to prove a negative?

Isn't that like saying, "Everything I say is a lie"?

For example, I can swear up and down all day that there is no such thing as a ghost. Yet there are normal, rational people who honestly believe they have seen and experienced ghosts. Could it be that the people who have never seen ghosts simply a) don't see them because they've never happened to be in the same room with one; b) don't see them simply because their brain filters ghosts out as non-permissible "division by zero"; or c) don't see ghosts because they don't want to see ghosts?

Worthwhile reading here:

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/online/4435/the-scientific-method-or-lack-it

Funny you should mention that. The statement that you constructed is similar (but with important differences) a family of statements that can neither be confirmed or denied. It's the inevitable consequence of logical thought. If you have a system of rules that is consistent (i.e. a system that will NEVER show a statement to be both true and false) it will absolutely include statements which can't be shown to be either.

Generally speaking, I can prove a negative. For example, I can simply prove that two plus one does not equal five. I can even prove nonexistence. I can prove that no prime numbers exist between 8 and 10. The problem, if it is one, is that I know of nothing in physics that precludes the existence of ghosts and other strange phenomena. All I can draw on is centuries of research that has turned up no credible evidence. Based on that, I wouldn't go as far as to say that it doesn't exists and we should stop looking, but surely it makes enormous amounts of sense to focus attention on what's happening with the people (who we already know to be subject to influence and irrational behavior from minor influences) than focusing on supernatural effects that we search in earnest for but can't find. I think it's far more interesting that so many people pick up on environmental clues, and signal themselves via dowsing rods, than it would be to find some boring explanation about magnetic fields and things such as that.

[Scott Shepherd]

What if it's not a magnetic field? What if it's something that we don't even know exists yet? That's my point. You don't know what you don't know. Can you say with 100% certainty that it doesn't work? I can't. As long as there is some doubt, it's quite possible that it's something happening in those cases that is beyond what we currently know and understand with the tools that are available to us at this time.

[Dan Hintz]

Always a possibility...

As others have mentioned, if you can't show a statistically greater than guessing value, it doesn't matter if it's an unknown science or voodoo... if you can't repeat it, it ain't really happenin' the way you claim it is.

[Chuck Stone]

ok.. I've read the thread and I can't figure this out..
Do the diving rods detect water, electricity, dirt, rubber, plastic or holes?

[Greg Peterson]

ok.. I've read the thread and I can't figure this out..
Do the diving rods detect water, electricity, dirt, rubber, plastic or holes?

The older rods were only good for detecting water because, well, the other stuff didn't exist until recently. In the early twentieth century, rods were developed that could sense electricity and rubber. In the sixties the capability to detect plastic was developed.

Now, rod technology has become so advanced they can detect virtually anything.

Belinda - I think we are a few generations away from a model with a cup holder. But the next gen will have blue tooth for sure.

[Chuck Stone]

The older rods were only good for detecting water because, well, the other stuff didn't exist until recently. In the early twentieth century, rods were developed that could sense electricity and rubber. In the sixties the capability to detect plastic was developed.

Wow. Does OSHA watch over this? I can see some poor schlub trying to dig a well, and gets
himself electrocuted because he used two hickory branches instead of willow..

[Leigh Betsch]

mine just detect dirt

[Jacob Reverb]

Do the diving rods detect water, electricity, dirt, rubber, plastic or holes?

The rods I'm talking about are bronze or brass brazing rods about 36" long, about 1/8" thick, with a 90° bent in them maybe 6" from the end and are (were?) standard equipment with many excavators who used them to detect metallic underground pipes.

[Scott Shepherd]

Or........is it possible that it does work and very few people have the gift and can do it, but the market was soon flooded with scam artist trying to exploit the market? Who was all this testing done on, people that truly have the ability and gift, or media attention seeking scam artist?

I've seen a lot of accounts of Psychic's accurately giving information. So much so that they are used in some cases by law enforcement to help solve crimes. I believe that happens and I believe they are able to "see" things that they didn't physically witness. Assume law enforcement is the client that gives those people credibility by using them. Now, let's take that to the person down the street on the corner of a low income area, taking money from people telling them they need to come back next week with $20 more dollars for more answers.

One's real (real as based on the fact law enforcement are using them as a resource) and one's a scam artist. Now, does that scam artist, being fake, mean that the real talent doesn't exist? Or do they just pollute the impression and reputation of all psychics? I would argue that's the case.

Just as in this case. Perhaps there are truly gifted people, with some gift that cannot be explained at this time, yet their reputation is soiled by scam artist trying to make a buck.

How do you sort the two apart, if there are real ones out there? You can't base your study just on people that "say" they are able to do it. Some how you have to weed all those people out and get to the people that truly may have the gift, and I'm not sure how you do that.

[Joe Angrisani]

....How do you sort the two apart, if there are real ones out there?.....

You put up something like $1,000,000 as a prize to anyone who can demonstrate the "art". Oh wait, someone has put up a million dollar prize....

[Dan Friedrichs]

I've seen a lot of accounts of Psychic's accurately giving information. So much so that they are used in some cases by law enforcement to help solve crimes.

I hope that isn't common!
I just finished a very good book - "What the dog saw - and other adventures" by Malcolm Gladwell. It's a collection of stories that challenge our understanding of common ideas. The title alludes to one of the stories that discusses the legitimacy of "dog whisperers", or people who claim to communicate with animals. Turns out, they are in fact "communicating", but by using very subtle behavioral cues (so, nothing magic or psychic going on). One of the other stories examines the use of "psychics" and/or psychologists in criminal investigations. I'll save you the reading: turns out, it's bunk. Anyone who found this thread on dowsing interesting would really enjoy that book.

[Greg Peterson]

Scott -

What are the batting percentages of the psychics that help the police? I have heard and read accounts where psychics offered assistance or were specifically asked to help the law enforcement authorities. But I don't recall reading where the psychic solved the case. And certainly not with any kind of repeatability.

I am open to the idea that our universe is far, far stranger than we can imagine and that our knowledge of the natural world is limited.

That said, the scientific methods that have brought our civilization to its current state of progress and understanding, should not be dismissed simply because it fails to answer every question man can conjure to ones satisfaction.

Repeatability is the key.

2+2=4 every time.

[Phil Thien]

I am open to the idea that our universe is far, far stranger than we can imagine and that our knowledge of the natural world is limited.

That said, the scientific methods that have brought our civilization to its current state of progress and understanding, should not be dismissed simply because it fails to answer every question man can conjure to ones satisfaction.

Repeatability is the key.


While I'll admit to not buying all the divining rod stuff, I'd like to go on record as saying psychics are awesome.

[Scott Shepherd]

But I don't recall reading where the psychic solved the case. And certainly not with any kind of repeatability.

I am open to the idea that our universe is far, far stranger than we can imagine and that our knowledge of the natural world is limited.

That said, the scientific methods that have brought our civilization to its current state of progress and understanding, should not be dismissed simply because it fails to answer every question man can conjure to ones satisfaction.

Repeatability is the key.

2+2=4 every time.

I didn't say they solved the cases, I said they help law enforcement solve cases. There are many documented stories of police being helped by psychics. Again, these are people in many cases, that have lived their life with a "curse" in their eyes, until being able to harness what they see and find a role in society. The police aren't running down to the corner "psychic" and asking them for help and dropping $20 in the jar on the way out. These are professional people that are asked to help. Can they repeat it 100% every time? No. Why? I have no idea, other than some times they see things, some times they don't. I don't dismiss that because they can't do it every time.

I don't know any basketball players that can hit a free throw every single time, but we still call them professional basketball players. In fact, I don't know many things in life outside of math that are 100% every time. Saying 2+2 always equals 4 means nothing. It means that in math, 2+2=4, that's all.

It really amazes me how some people can read a book and say "well, there, that's settled" and dismiss anyone else's personal accounts to the contrary. Well, what if I read a book that says the opposite (I'm sure you can find an opposite opinion for just about everything said). So you read a book that says one thing, I read a book that says the opposite. So now what? I don't believe you and you don't believe me? Where's that get us as a society? Not too far.

All I'm saying is that I'm open to accept the fact that there are many things we still can't explain and I'm not smart enough to know for 100% certain just about anything in life, other than death and taxes. Outside of that, I'm open to hearing all people's accounts of life.

On this very thread there are several people that said they had used the divining rods with success. However, they were discounted as a fluke and moved on. I don't discount anyone's experiences. If they said it worked for them, then I assume it worked for them. It's not my place to tell someone that they surely couldn't have had it work because it's fake. I don't know if it is or not. You've essentially just called someone a liar or told them they are stupid. You're telling them something they saw with their own eyes didn't happen.

[Gene Howe]

Thanks for mentioning the "Pauli effect". I did look it up and, now I understand my tools better. I should change my name to Pauli!:D

[Greg Peterson]

Ah, shuddup Phil. Aren't you suppose to be down in the Mac thread stirring the pot anyway?:D

Magic 8 Ball, will this thread ever settle the matter?

Magic 8 Ball says: .........


----To Be Continued------

[Jerome Stanek]

how does Randi set up the test is it to his advantage or is it a real situation. Does the lines run straight. He hasn't proved that it doesn't work.

[Larry Edgerton]

I didn't say they solved the cases, I said they help law enforcement solve cases. There are many documented stories of police being helped by psychics. Again, these are people in many cases, that have lived their life with a "curse" in their eyes, until being able to harness what they see and find a role in society. The police aren't running down to the corner "psychic" and asking them for help and dropping $20 in the jar on the way out. These are professional people that are asked to help. Can they repeat it 100% every time? No. Why? I have no idea, other than some times they see things, some times they don't. I don't dismiss that because they can't do it every time.

I don't know any basketball players that can hit a free throw every single time, but we still call them professional basketball players. In fact, I don't know many things in life outside of math that are 100% every time. Saying 2+2 always equals 4 means nothing. It means that in math, 2+2=4, that's all.

It really amazes me how some people can read a book and say "well, there, that's settled" and dismiss anyone else's personal accounts to the contrary. Well, what if I read a book that says the opposite (I'm sure you can find an opposite opinion for just about everything said). So you read a book that says one thing, I read a book that says the opposite. So now what? I don't believe you and you don't believe me? Where's that get us as a society? Not too far.

All I'm saying is that I'm open to accept the fact that there are many things we still can't explain and I'm not smart enough to know for 100% certain just about anything in life, other than death and taxes. Outside of that, I'm open to hearing all people's accounts of life.

On this very thread there are several people that said they had used the divining rods with success. However, they were discounted as a fluke and moved on. I don't discount anyone's experiences. If they said it worked for them, then I assume it worked for them. It's not my place to tell someone that they surely couldn't have had it work because it's fake. I don't know if it is or not. You've essentially just called someone a liar or told them they are stupid. You're telling them something they saw with their own eyes didn't happen.

Agreed. I like my life big enough to ponder the unexplained......

I would hate to live in a box defined by someone else.

Larry

[Greg Peterson]

Jerome -

From Randi's FAQ:

"1.4 Has anyone ever gotten past the preliminary test?

No. Some people use this fact as a reason not to apply – and yet the protocol is never altered once the applicant agrees to it. In fact, we ask the applicant to design the test."

So, he lets the person claiming psychic powers design the test! Wow! How much easier can it get?

The universe is as infinitely large as it is infinitely small. Our understanding of the observable universe is extremely limited. There are enough mysteries to ponder without having to make up more.

[Dan Friedrichs]

I didn't say they solved the cases, I said they help law enforcement solve cases. There are many documented stories of police being helped by psychics.

Steve, I would highly recommend the book I mentioned earlier. It goes into some great detail as to why psychic (and even formally-trained criminal psychologists) are really just using educated guesses, and are, on average, wrong far more often than they are right.



On this very thread there are several people that said they had used the divining rods with success. However, they were discounted as a fluke and moved on. I don't discount anyone's experiences. If they said it worked for them, then I assume it worked for them.

Ok, but then we need to define "worked". If I take two rods outside, and they cross within 6" of the location of a buried pipe, did it work? How about 12"? How close do I need to be for it to count as a "positive result"? Now, just because it happened once, doesn't mean it will always work, right? So I need to get many positive results before I can assert that it really works. How many results do I need? Does it need to work twice in a row? Three times? How about 4 times interrupted by one false positive? What does my success ratio need to be?

Here's the thing: all those questions can be answered by really basic statistical analysis. And when someone has taken the time to do controlled experiments with statistical analysis of the results, they find that it's no more than chance. If someone on this thread has done a controlled experiment, let me know! But from what I'm reading, it's just some people saying, "Well I saw a guy do it once..." Once doesn't matter. Neither does twice, really. You probably need hundreds of controlled tests to determine anything.

Think of it this way: If you flipped a coin 10 times, and got 10 "heads", would you conclude that a flip of the coin always results in "heads"? The data suggests it, but we know it's not true - the problem is that we have too small of dataset to get accurate results.

[Jeff Bartley]

On this very thread there are several people that said they had used the divining rods with success. However, they were discounted as a fluke and moved on. I don't discount anyone's experiences. If they said it worked for them, then I assume it worked for them. It's not my place to tell someone that they surely couldn't have had it work because it's fake. I don't know if it is or not. You've essentially just called someone a liar or told them they are stupid. You're telling them something they saw with their own eyes didn't happen.

Thank you for saying what I was thinking! I have no clue what statistical analysis would say about my personal observations but I can't seem to list it as chance when someone finds buried utility lines over and over again as I've witnessed. And I'll point out again that my observations were only in finding buried utilities, not water, and only using metal rods.
Am I a liar for relaying observation to this discussion? And stupidity? I can't argue with that, I've sure done some dumb things in the past, but that has nothing to do observation. A three year old would have made the very same observation(s) that I did. I can only agree to disagree with those that think anyone has made up these stories. But please folks: don't get upset over this discussion--it's just a discussion! Too bad we can't all sit around with a couple beers and have this talk! Of course then we could bend some wire and walk around someones yard to conduct our own 'blind test'!
Mike C. and Dan H.---we're relatively local to one another so let's be sure to bring some coat hangers if we ever get to hang out.
Jeff

[Greg Peterson]

No one is calling anyone a liar. Far from it. I do not doubt anybodies observations or second hand information.

We hear about the successful dowsing experiences, not the failed ones. How many attempts does the average dowser make before finding the objective? How many false negatives (missed the mark) were there? No way to really know this, but you get my point. Who is to say there wasn't water ten inches below the dowser?

[John Coloccia]

How does the left rod know to go right and the right one to go left? Even more interesting, what makes them straighten out afterwards? That would imply yet another force at work that's trying to keep the rods straight, and then water, power lines, etc interrupt this force and force the rods together...and then the first force forces them back apart. This force also knows which way you're facing, AND it additionally knows that you're trying to dowse because under ordinary circumstances there is no force that moves rods to face a certain way (the "straightened out, nothing detected way"). That's quite an amazing force and IMHO is far more interesting and exotic than whatever causes the rods to cross in the first place. I could ALMOST envision some subtle magnetic something or other causing that, but the straightening out force is downright amazing.

Scott:
re: how to setup a study

Check out the Munich experiment for dowsing. You would have a hard time imagining a study that is more favorable towards the dowsers while still maintaining good protocol. The results were as they always were: no better than random chance. I was turned onto this study by a mentor of mine as an example of how NOT to analyze data because of some controversy concerning the data analysis.

Now for some real fun, look up the bomb/narcotic dowsing rods that are being sold all over the world. This is where we move from harmless backyard fun into serious business.

[Phil Thien]

(1) We started with divining rods, with many here insisting they work.

(2) We moved on to psychics. I, for one, feel psychics are awesome.

(3) Therefor, it would seem that Ouija Boards are an actual connection to the spirit world.

[Jeff Bratt]

how does Randi set up the test is it to his advantage or is it a real situation. Does the lines run straight. He hasn't proved that it doesn't work.

Randi does not set up the test. The general protocol is that the applicant gets to design the test and the James Randi Foundation just makes sure that the demonstration is rigorous enough that scientific results can be obtained. Basically, the applicant gets to say "This is what I can do" and agrees to a demonstration where s/he can either pass or fail after multiple trials. So far, no one has been able to do what they say they can do. They can't even pass their own test.

What is happening during dowsing is that people remember when they "succeed", and forget when they "fail". Once you record and document all the predictions - whatever they may be, it always comes out to basically the same as guessing. That is why scientists say dowsing doesn't work. It has been tested many times, and when all the data are examined, the results always come up lacking. This is not closed mindedness - it is how you sort fact from fiction. One "correct" result (or even two or three) is not nearly enough to say dowsing works. You have to repeatably be able to find what you are looking for when it is there, and not say you found something when it's not really there. Anyone who can accomplish that - with dowsing or any other supernatural means - will get a cool $1,000,000 from James Randi.

[John Robrt Wilson]

Careful of what you criticize just because scientist @prove@ it is not possible. I do not have a view either way as during my ancient life:) I have seen and encountered many strange things. working as a Volunteer Community Advocate fighting on behalf of those most vulnerable within the community I see research biased or corrupted because the parameters have been set to narrow leading to a bias towards the views of thse with a vested interest. later it was found that those concerns were right. Where I live we had a community set up under court orders for companies to work together with the public and address conserns and issues. It was wide open to anyone in the public to come and have their concerns addressed. when the committee refused to support the company attain an accredited licence until it complied with its present licence conditions. the result was the company refused to continue to work alongside the committee and set up its own special committee and refused to provide the community with information, (narrow parameters). My comments may appear irrelevant to this forum but I use it to demonstrate how research, (technical, health etc.) can be biased in favour of vested interests. My advice listen, think carefully, and research the subject to enable an informed decision. Now my question regarding the scientific study would be what were the parameters and methodolgy set to undertake the study and did it include a holistic study or just some "ideas". I love reading and seeing different views expressed. I am retired (so they tell me) but work long hours on behalf of the community, but do manage to include my hobby of woodworking, although I do not claim to be an expert and I am very interested from learning from others. One of my areas of special interest is disabled childre, specifically those with autistic spectrum conditions. Regards.

[Phil Thien]

I recently saw this documentary where it showed how our world is controlled by a group of men wearing hats. Their job is to make sure the master plan is followed. So if you aren't supposed to meet a certain girl on a bus, for example, they might cause you to spill coffee on yourself on your way to the bus, which would cause you to return to your home to change clothes, which would cause you to miss your bus.

In the documentary they said a lot of things that happen to us every day (Internet connection goes out, etc.) are caused by these men (they were referred to in the documentary as working for the Adjustment Bureau).

Well, I feel much better after seeing it and I now understand a lot of things I didn't before.

[Mike Henderson]

What is happening during dowsing is that people remember when they "succeed", and forget when they "fail"...
That's exactly the same as gamblers. They remember the times they won and forget the times the lost. But if you add up the money, most (almost all) of them are net losers. The house is the only consistent winner because the odds work that way (the house is favored).

Mike

[Leigh Betsch]

(they were referred to in the documentary as working for the Adjustment Bureau).

I have been trying to reply to this but my PC keeps locking up..............

[Chuck Stone]

I have been trying to reply to this but my PC keeps locking up..............

Sorry..
ok, you can try it now.

[Greg Peterson]

Unlike research conducted in the spirit of commerce, legitimate scientific research is subjected to peer review. Scientists with opposing or conflicting opinions on a matter ultimately expand our knowledge base.

In the twentieth century, scientists were rock stars. We won a war based on science (A bomb), put men on the moon, greatly advanced the standard of living and so on. Now we're slipping back to calling scientists heretics because the method they used to deliver all the advances our civilization has enjoyed to date either won't confirm a belief or dare to suggest something that runs contrary to a system of beliefs.

Here's a test for the dowser folks. If you needed a well on your property, would you trust a dowser that told you there was no water on your property?

Or even better yet, if you had to choose between a nerd sporting a pocket protector or an old timer dowser, which one would you choose?

[Jason Roehl]

Well, nerds with pocket protectors designed the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, the Challenger and Columbia, the I-35 (?) bridge in St. Paul, MN, the Edsel, the Corvair...

[Jim Koepke]

There are many things we do not fully understand.

Does that mean they should be dismissed?

I do not think of myself as a dowser, but I have used bent rods and have them work for me.

Other things are also interesting about personal anomalies. My body seems to build up a static charge more than other people I have known. I have found ways to compensate for this so I do not get zapped every time I touch metal.

I gave up wearing mechanical watches years ago. Everyone of them would come to a stop and not start again when worn by me. Sometimes within a period of a few days. One watch lasted a few months.

Just as some folks are better at some skills, there are also physical and chemical principles at work in our composition. Some folks are sensitive to weather changes while others may be sensitive to other stimuli.

If something can not be fully explained, it does not mean it is without merit.

For all we know there is a concentration of magnetic forces in those who find things with dowsing rods.

I doubt anyone who can dowse can explain why or how it works. It would not surprise me to hear them try. Most likely the more beer (or other spirit), the more verbose the explanation.

Maybe a study should be done to find a reason why dowsing works for some and not others.

There is much in the world that is not explained.

Why are some people lactose intolerant? Why can I eat peanuts by the handful and some people eat one peanut and it almost causes their death?

Medicines also work different for different people, just because there are a limited number of "side effects" experienced by some, there are positive actions for many others.

I can not explain my religion. That does not mean I will abandon my beliefs.

jtk

[Chris Kennedy]

There seem to be several responses along the lines of "just because you can't explain it doesn't mean you should dismiss it" and several more taking scientifically-minded folk to task with admonitions that "not everything can be explained" or similar statements, and there have been a couple of ad hominem attacks on scientists as well.

The main objection (at least as I read it) to the practice of divination has been the lack of repeatability, not any possible explanation that has been put forward. Indeed, if we were to try to determine an underlying explanation, we would first need reliable practitioners that can constantly and repeatably provide results. Without them, any plausible explanation would be muddied by random chance. We would not be able to distinguish whether it was the potential theory or if it was just luck.

Cheers,

Chris

[Dan Friedrichs]

Maybe a study should be done to find a reason why dowsing works for some and not others.

It HAS BEEN, MANY TIMES - the result is that it DOESN'T work for ANYONE.



Why are some people lactose intolerant? Why can I eat peanuts by the handful and some people eat one peanut and it almost causes their death?
These are easily explained. A few seconds with Google will give you a full treatment of food allergy. Just because *you* don't understand it, doesn't mean that the human race as a whole doesn't understand it.

[Dan Friedrichs]

Well, nerds with pocket protectors designed the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, the Challenger and Columbia, the I-35 (?) bridge in St. Paul, MN, the Edsel, the Corvair...

...and the computer you are sitting in front of, and the defibrillator that may save you life, and the airbags in your car, and the other space shuttles...

The fact that we are not abandoning modern technology in favor of antiquity suggest that those "nerds with pocket protectors" are right significantly more often than they are wrong...

[Phil Thien]

New theory: Perhaps the universe won't allow us to test things like divining rods. Just maybe they will always have to remain a matter of faith.

That, even if someone has a 99% track record using them, any attempt at testing this will result in 50-50 results.

[Jerome Stanek]

I don't know why I can find electric and water lines but I can with two metal rods. I never tried finding water so I don't know if I can. My sister had a well driller come out and my mother told him to drill at one spot but he said he would drill about 10 feet over because in his expert opinion there was water there and it would be easier for him. He drilled 190 feet and didn't hit any water so he drilled where my mother said and hit water at 90 feet.

[Dan Friedrichs]

I don't know why I can find electric and water lines but I can with two metal rods.
Can you do it repeatedly? Apparently there's a chance for you to become a millionaire, here.

[Jerome Stanek]

Yes I can go it I worked with an excavator that wanted me to find lines for him all the time. He couldn't do it but his young daughter could so she now marks the lines for him.

[Greg Peterson]

Well, nerds with pocket protectors designed the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, the Challenger and Columbia, the I-35 (?) bridge in St. Paul, MN, the Edsel, the Corvair...

How is the bridge that replaced the Tacoma Narrows bridge holding up these days? Has it failed?

Shuttles did not fail due to design failures. Challenger failed because the booster was operated outside its design parameters. Columbia failed because a heat shield tile fell off during ascent. Again, not a design error. Perhaps optimistic that such an event would not occur, but space travel is a high risk endeavor.

The I-35 bridge failed due to neglect, not design.

The Edsel was a commercial failure. The Corvair is certainly not the first or the last knowingly dangerous vehicle produced by Detroit. Don't forget the Lee Iacoca's Pinto fiasco.

I'm curious how we have come to hold science in such disdain these days.

[Jeff Bratt]

I don't know why I can find electric and water lines but I can with two metal rods.

No one has ever been able to find anything with dowsing rods repeatably, under controlled conditions. People have tried to find water, electrical cables, metal ores - all kinds of stuff. No one has ever demonstrated they can dowse better than just guessing. There is $1,000,000 dollars waiting (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html) for anyone who can... may have tried, no one has yet been able do what they say they can do.

This does not matter whether the method is understood. No dowser has been able to state beforehand what they will and will not find, and then do it repeatably. When all their predictions are totaled up, every time they say "yes" or "no" - based on their own criteria - is recorded, then their results are always no better then random guessing. This has nothing to do with "scientists" proving or disproving anything. People who claim to be able to dowse have (so far) never been able to repeatable do what they say they can do. If anyone demonstrates repeatable dowsing, then scientists would be able look what might be happening. So far there is nothing to examine... a couple of anecdotes, by themselves, don't really mean anything.

Read the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing), and follow it's links to find descriptions of large dowsing experiments that have been done in the past.

[Scott Shepherd]

I don't think anyone holds science in disdain, I think there are people who have a healthy skepticism of various items. No one's throwing science or scientists under the bus. Certainly science has done wonders. Not one person suggests it hasn't. What people keep repeated and it keeps getting taking as such, is that science isn't 100% right 100% of the time. That's all that's being said.

How's that Alar treated apple working for you?

Pork is bad for you. Wait, no it's not. Wait, yes it is, wait, not it's not....

Eggs are bad for you. Wait, no they are not. Wait, yes they are, wait, no,yes,no.......

White bread is great for you. Wait, no it's not. Wait, it's okay, wait, no it's not, wa.....

And the shuttles did come apart because of design failure. If they were designed properly, the tiles wouldn't have come off during re-entry. If you say it's not design related, it's scientist that write those procedures for coming back into the earth's atmosphere. They didn't think to perform any kind of checks or put any systems in place? Scientists make mistakes. They are human. We all make mistakes.

There's nothing wrong with not blindly following what someone says in a book or on tv. That's a healthy perspective to have. It makes you think instead of being a sheep that follows all the other sheep.

Just because one questions a scientific activity doesn't mean they don't believe it science, it just means that's like to see more data to satisfy their own thoughts, experiences, and beliefs. Again, to me, a very healthy thing to have in todays world.

[John Coloccia]

re: bridges, shuttles, et al

Another case of ignoring all of the evidence that doesn't agree with the view point. What about all of the hundreds of thousands and millions of devices, space craft, bridges and fruit that function perfectly as designed? Science and engineering is held to an innumerably higher standard than the downright puny results that would be cause for excitement surrounding psychics, dowsers and mediums.

"There's this guy I know that can sometimes make a bridge that doesn't collapse".

:rolleyes:

Why not accept that there could exist a perfectly natural explanation for what you see? On the science side, we certainly accept that there could be a hitherto undiscovered explanation, and we explore and investigate. Again, it's not we that are close minded. We simply report what we see, without excluding inconvenient contrary evidence. Where it goes astray is when you start only reporting evidence that agrees with your viewpoint and excluding all other evidence, such as pointing out a handful of engineering failures while completely ignoring the generations of predominantly successful endeavors.

[Jason Roehl]

My point was that "nerds with pocket protectors" are not 100%. No one is. I think someone else mentioned sports. We throw millions of dollars at baseball players who are doing very well to hit the ball 30% of the time ("batting .300").

So scientists haven't been able to repeat the results of dowsing or divining. Maybe their experiments were done on a tract of land that had some other anomaly that adversely affected the dowsers/diviners. That still doesn't PROVE that it doesn't work. That just means that the scientific method hasn't been able to repeat it yet (gotta cover all those variables!). Was flying airplanes not possible when only the Wright brothers were doing it and no one else was repeating it?

All I know is that I was VERY skeptical of divining when a friend of mine (who worked as a construction supervisor for the local Water Works for many years) showed me. I gave him lots of grief--until I tried it. I was just using one clothes hanger bent into an 'L' shape. The tendency of it to line up with a buried water line was unmistakable. He showed me this at my church (I was sure we would get struck by lightning...). I went home to try it and checked it on my own water line, since I know where it is (I know where the meter pit is, obviously, and I know where the main shutoff is, and it's a pretty straight shot). I could walk a mile with that rod pointing straight out in front of me, but as soon as I cross a water line, it will swing hard to line up with the buried main.

[Bill Cunningham]

No matter what forum your on, the two subjects that never fail to get a thread moving 'large' is Dowsing, and Mac or PC..:D
Dowsing is also a big issue on treasure hunters forums (http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/board,200.0.html), Some swear by it, some swear at it.. But it always leads to interesting conversations, and sometimes flame wars.. My opinion? When I was 15 I was taught how to dowse by a old farmer who was well known for 'witching' water wells in the Flesherton Ontario area.. Did I find water? Don't know, but the copper rods moved back and forth, and crossed on several occasions. A green forked branch held so the 'Y' ends were twisted in your hands, moved up, over, and down with enough force to strip the bark off in my hands.. A long branch (6' or so), thick at one end (about 1-1.5"), and thin at the other (usually about 1/2") would be held over the spot water was suspected. It was held by the thin end, and the thick end was prevented from moving by someone holding it steady. Once the thick end was released the long branch would sit motionless for 15-20 seconds, and would then start bobbing up and down. You would count the number of times it bobbed before it stopped, and that I was told, would correspond to the number of feet the water was down. Did it work? well, it seemed to. When tried at every location where the well depth was known to the owner, but not revealed to the dowser (15 year old me) the bobbing branch was 100% accurate every time.. Why? I have no idea.. It was just a curious 'something', taught to me by an oldtimer.. (who was probably only about 15-20 years older than I am now):D

[Dan Friedrichs]

The tendency of it to line up with a buried water line was unmistakable.

Well, if you're sure it works, why don't you apply for the $1M, Jason?

[Bruce Wrenn]

As for being able to drill most anywhere, come down to our section of the country. I can show you several 700-800 foot deep post holes. Drill rig blowing dust out of the hole all the way down. I can also show you several wells less than 100' deep that yield over 20 gallons per minute. That about 30,000 gallons per day. Most of these high yielding wells were either drill based on "water witch's location, or using hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment. But most home owners can't afford this, so dowser comes in and says "drill here. " High tech equipt. is used to locate diabase dikes. Drill on the up side and get water, drill on down side and get dust. Get an underground locater to locate either transite, or plastic pipe that doesn't have a tracer wire. I first experience with divining was on a job that had a transite water line on it. We had engineers "as built drawings" locating water line. Old guy from water company came out and located pipe with divining rods. Even went trouble to show me location of shut off valve, and leave me a wrench to fit such. Sure enough, next day grouser bars on D-8 tracks pierced pipe along it's length. Multiple geysers, spaced about 12" apart. The valve had two offsets between valve and actual line, even though drawings indicated none. Not far from me is a state park. The had drilled many wells, and none with enough water to meet needs. Finally the agency in charge said to get a dowser. He located two places to drill on an area of several hundred acres. Both yielded the required water, even though one was less than 10' from a previously drilled post hole. As for me, I will take a dowser every time over random chance. The last well I had drilled (1987) was located by dowser, and yields 20+ gallons per minute. All the wells in a half mile radius combined don't yield 20 gallons per minute. Because I can't see TV pictures traveling through the air doesn't mean they don't

[Jim Koepke]

Read the wikipedia article, and follow it's links to find descriptions of large dowsing experiments that have been done in the past.

One study seems to indicate that 6 of the dowsers did perform above the levels of chance. A later person disputes the findings of that test.

My curiosity has me wondering if something else may be missing from the testing. Dowsers are usually looking for something that has been in place for a long time.

An interesting attribute of magnetic fields is they can be influenced by forces and materials in their environment. Sometimes the effects are unstable until a balance is reached.

Maybe I should go see if I can find my water and electric lines.

Then there is faith or beliefs. I have worked with people who would say something like, "I couldn't sharpen a knife if my life depended on it." As long as they believed they were not going to be able to do something, they were not going to be able to do it. They would first have to believe there was a possibility of them being able to perform a task before it would be possible to teach them the task.

I think Henry Ford said, "Whether you believe you can do something or can't do something, you are probably right."

jtk

[Brian Ashton]

Then there is faith or beliefs. I have worked with people who would say something like, "I couldn't sharpen a knife if my life depended on it." As long as they believed they were not going to be able to do something, they were not going to be able to do it. They would first have to believe there was a possibility of them being able to perform a task before it would be possible to teach them the task.

I think Henry Ford said, "Whether you believe you can do something or can't do something, you are probably right."

jtk


I whole heartedly agree with that except that I attribute it to compete and total ignorance. If I had any idea about some of the things I've taken on I would never have even attempted it because I wouldn't have believe I could have pulled it off, but by the time I was at a point of thinking "this isn't working" it was too late and I had to keep going. And low and behold most often it worked out...

I had just changed my signature before I read your post to: ignorance is the mother of all invention. (it's in italian) I.e. if you don't know you can't do it... what's going to stop you.

[Phil Thien]

Next question about dowsing rods:

Background: One of the things I've noticed about dowsers I've observed (on TV, not in person) is that, when the rods are crossing, their hands/wrists seem to be moving in a way that would cause the rods to cross. Very subtle movement of the hands/wrists will cause this.

Question: Can the rods work without a human holding them? Could you place them in a board with holes, and move the board around a property, and still expect the rods to cross when over water or electrical lines?

Follow-up question: Would it be possible to make a tilt meter that could tell when a dowser is tilting their hands/wrists to cause the points to cross?

[Dan Hintz]

And the shuttles did come apart because of design failure. If they were designed properly, the tiles wouldn't have come off during re-entry.
What killed the shuttles was bureaucratic nonsense, not design failure. The first shuttle was lost because the bureaucrats decided it was safe to fly, despite strong objections from the engineers of Morton Thiokol (the manufacturers and designers) of the solid rocket boosters). The second shuttle was lost, yet again, to bureaucratic nonsense... despite the voiced concern of NASA engineers that falling tiles during launch (every launch lost several tiles or pieces thereof) would eventually cause major damage, the bureaucrats decided not to let the engineers make the appropriate modifications. So again, the design may not have been perfect from the beginning (what is?), but when engineers tried to make it better, bureaucrats stepped in and said "We know better, because we have to control the purse strings and look good to our bosses."

Anyone want to guess what happened with the Tacoma Narrows bridge? If memory serves, the original design was scrapped for a cheaper one, using a design that was more theory than practice, and not enough work had been done with the chosen design to make sure it would work as intended. Science didn't fail, the arrogance of the pencil pushers and a civil designer with eyes bigger than his brains killed it.

[Jim Koepke]

Anyone want to guess what happened with the Tacoma Narrows bridge? If memory serves, the original design was scrapped for a cheaper one

I thought they used the same basic structure and went with extra lanes so the weight would change the harmonic resonance factor.

So, not being sure, it was looked up on the internet. Wow! That bridge was down for about 10 years due to the second World War.

Stuff happens.

jtk

[Jeff Bratt]

One study seems to indicate that 6 of the dowsers did perform above the levels of chance. A later person disputes the findings of that test.

...the best dowser [of those 6] was on average 4 millimeters out of 10 meters closer to a mid-line guess, [a difference from guessing] of 0.0004%.


I think Henry Ford said, "Whether you believe you can do something or can't do something, you are probably right."

That is true for many things - especially those requiring perseverance. But it is not true of everything - no matter how much you believe, or how hard you try, you cannot build a perpetual motion device. A solid understanding of the principles applicable to what you are trying to accomplish is always useful.


Next question about dowsing rods:

Background: One of the things I've noticed about dowsers I've observed (on TV, not in person) is that, when the rods are crossing, their hands/wrists seem to be moving in a way that would cause the rods to cross. Very subtle movement of the hands/wrists will cause this.

This is the operating principle of dowsing with L-shaped wires


Question: Can the rods work without a human holding them? Could you place them in a board with holes, and move the board around a property, and still expect the rods to cross when over water or electrical lines?


That sounds like a good, relatively easy, and cheap experiment to do. Maybe one of the dowsers can try? Drill accurate holes in a board and mount the rods such that tilting the board only causes the wires to move in tandem with each other. Then try to find places that can repeatably cause the wires to cross...

[Scott Shepherd]

That sounds like a good, relatively easy, and cheap experiment to do. Maybe one of the dowsers can try? Drill accurate holes in a board and mount the rods such that tilting the board only causes the wires to move in tandem with each other. Then try to find places that can repeatably cause the wires to cross...

Or, the actual PERSON could have something to do with it. It could be something in their body that causes their hands, wrists, etc. to move at that point. It may have zero to do with the rods and everything to do with the person. Just as stated earlier, maybe those people have a higher percentage of "something" in the body. Maybe their body is hypersensitive to something we aren't aware of. Taking the person out of it only proves it's not the rods. Just as someone's knee hurts when rain is moving in, maybe this is something along those lines.

Maybe it's not. I have no idea, nor does anyone else, but if you're going to test things, you can strip all the factors out one by one and then when it yields no results individually, declare the whole as a failure.

I witnessed a cooperate HQ coming online about a year ago. They had huge chillers, and tons of equipment for heating and cooling the place. All top of the line. Turned it all on individually and it worked. Turn it on all together, it didn't work. It took them 2 months to figure it out. Every engineer of each piece said their piece worked fine, yet none of it worked together.

This could be the exact same thing, in reverse. Maybe it's the environment, the person, and the rods, so isolating it to one thing isn't going to prove that it works or doesn't work.

[Scott Donley]

The Narrows Bridge was a design error, they did not have any vents to allow wind to flow allowing for the wind harmonics that resulted in this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnw The replacement has grates in the roadway

[Greg Portland]

All I'm saying is that I'm open to accept the fact that there are many things we still can't explain and I'm not smart enough to know for 100% certain just about anything in life, other than death and taxes. Outside of that, I'm open to hearing all people's accounts of life.... as are scientists. Once someone demonstrates dowsing abilities with results greater than average chance then the scientific community will work toward explaining it. Until that is done then it doesn't make sense to waste resources on explaining a result that does not exist.

[Jason Roehl]

Yes, dowsers move their hands--AFTER the rod begins to move. I use a single, L-shaped rod, and it takes a lot of concentration to keep it pointed away from me but still parallel to the ground. Once it starts to swing, I have to move my hand to compensate or it will all but fall out of my hand--the pull is surprisingly strong. But there's no subconscious (or conscious) influence on its movement on my part. The faster I walk across a water line, the faster it moves and the more I have to compensate.

I guess I'm also curious why 50% would be "better than chance". If the items located don't comprise 50% of the area of the field being dowsed, then it's just a number out of a hat. Or are all baseball players just hitting on chance since they ALL hit less than 50%? Oh, yeah--neither the frontal area of the ball nor the bat comprise 50% of the pitching zone of any pitcher (note that I didn't say "strike zone").

[Jeff Bratt]

Or, the actual PERSON could have something to do with it. It could be something in their body that causes their hands, wrists, etc. to move at that point. It may have zero to do with the rods and everything to do with the person. Just as stated earlier, maybe those people have a higher percentage of "something" in the body. Maybe their body is hypersensitive to something we aren't aware of. Taking the person out of it only proves it's not the rods. Just as someone's knee hurts when rain is moving in, maybe this is something along those lines.

Everything I've read describes a sensation of the rods pulling on the dowser's hands - usually strongly. There is a description in this thread that says the same thing. If that person tries the suggested "board experiment", then there could be something to investigate.

[Dan Friedrichs]

I guess I'm also curious why 50% would be "better than chance".

The result is either positive (There is some water/metal buried within a reasonable distance of the present location) or negative (There is nothing at the present location). Thus, 50% accuracy would be expected by chance.



Jason, you seem to be one of the few in this thread who claims a personal ability to do this - why aren't you applying for the big prize money?

[Chris Kennedy]

I think batting averages have come up a couple of times in this thread, and I would point out that there is no comparison. There is a pitcher and a batter, hence two very complex variables and a contest of skills. If you are divining a buried utility, yeah, well, a pipe/power line has no animation, let alone skill. It isn't moving and trying to avoid detection. It is just . . . there.

I would be a little slow to question scientific methodology. I am not saying that scientific methodology is perfect, but this is something that scientists and the scientific community have been working to perfect (if such a thing is possible) since the birth of the scientific method in the Renaissance. As knowledge and technology have increased, so have the demands on scientific rigor.

Cheers,

Chris

[Mike Henderson]

Everything I've read describes a sensation of the rods pulling on the dowser's hands - usually strongly. There is a description in this thread that says the same thing. If that person tries the suggested "board experiment", then there could be something to investigate.
If the rods were really "pulling" you wouldn't have to hold them. You could just build some device that indicated where the [water,pipes,electricity, etc.] is and you could tow it in a cart. But, of course, that doesn't work.

I'm just amazed at how many people believe such superstitious nonsense.

Mike

[Greg Portland]

I guess I'm also curious why 50% would be "better than chance". If the items located don't comprise 50% of the area of the field being dowsed, then it's just a number out of a hat. Or are all baseball players just hitting on chance since they ALL hit less than 50%? Oh, yeah--neither the frontal area of the ball nor the bat comprise 50% of the pitching zone of any pitcher (note that I didn't say "strike zone").Imagine a 100x100 ft platform and under each 3x3' region is a container. Half of these containers are filled with water, others are not. You are standing on the platform and need to "guess" whether the container below has water or not. I say 3x3 but assume that this is the region that you can dowse without interference. If I walk around and guess randomly then I will be ~ %50 correct (just like a coin flip). People who believe in dowsing claim that they can guess correctly -statistically- better than average chance. This isn't a flat percentage... it depends on the number of trials being performed. For example, it's easier to guess 9/10 than 16 out of 20 (statistically speaking). If you're interested in the math involved than read up on binomial trials.

[Greg Portland]

The result is either positive (There is some water/metal buried within a reasonable distance of the present location) or negative (There is nothing at the present location). Thus, 50% accuracy would be expected by chance.Not really... with regards to finding a water pipe the odds are much lower in a residential lawn (odds of no pipe > pipe).

[Greg Peterson]

If I walk around and guess randomly then I will be ~ %50 correct (just like a coin flip). People who believe in dowsing claim that they can guess correctly -statistically- better than average chance. This isn't a flat percentage... it depends on the number of trials being performed. For example, it's easier to guess 9/10 than 16 out of 20 (statistically speaking). If you're interested in the math involved than read up on binomial trials.

Oh yeah, statistics. You make them say anything you want them to say. Math is corrupt.

[Dan Hintz]

You could just build some device that indicated where the [water,pipes,electricity, etc.] is and you could tow it in a cart. But, of course, that doesn't work.
Yeah, the problem with any contraption that is handheld is it is still under the control (subconscious or otherwise) of the user. In dowsing, the rods cross when the user tilts their hands forward. It's such a slight motion that it can be (and is) done subconsciously... you can force it, but then you notice the shift you have to make to your hands. If you place the rods in a holder, rather than your hands, you can still tilt the entire shebang forward. The holder must have a level sensor.

In fact, that's the best way to test dowsing... put a level sensor on the holder. The rods should cross all on their own without the user tilting... if a buzzer goes off, the user is tilting. For those believers about to say "But it is the user tilting his hands that causes the rods to cross", fine... let's get the rods out of the equation and just put a tilt sensor on the user's hands. They can't hear the buzzer, only someone else can, so no feedback when their hands tilt... let's see them keep those hands perfectly straight without the feedback of the rod, and let's see them tilt just enough to set off the buzzer any time they pass over some water/electric lines. "Oh, but it's the combination of the rods and the hands", you say... <sigh> no matter what combination of limits placed on it to make the test repeatable and measurable, someone will say that ruins it. And it all comes back around to the inability to test because you can't test blind faith.

[Lee Schierer]

Yeah, the problem with any contraption that is handheld is it is still under the control (subconscious or otherwise) of the user. In dowsing, the rods cross when the user tilts their hands forward. It's such a slight motion that it can be (and is) done subconsciously... you can force it, but then you notice the shift you have to make to your hands. If you place the rods in a holder, rather than your hands, you can still tilt the entire shebang forward. The holder must have a level sensor.

In fact, that's the best way to test dowsing... put a level sensor on the holder. The rods should cross all on their own without the user tilting... if a buzzer goes off, the user is tilting. For those believers about to say "But it is the user tilting his hands that causes the rods to cross", fine... let's get the rods out of the equation and just put a tilt sensor on the user's hands. They can't hear the buzzer, only someone else can, so no feedback when their hands tilt... let's see them keep those hands perfectly straight without the feedback of the rod, and let's see them tilt just enough to set off the buzzer any time they pass over some water/electric lines. "Oh, but it's the combination of the rods and the hands", you say... <sigh> no matter what combination of limits placed on it to make the test repeatable and measurable, someone will say that ruins it. And it all comes back around to the inability to test because you can't test blind faith.


Doesn't a blind test occur when a rod user is taken to a place where there are buried utilities (water & electric) and that user has never been on that site and is able to locate the buried lines with no prior knowledge of the site?

How did a person who had never been in my yard find my, fully buried existing well, septic system, and downspout drains which do not run straight out from the house?

[Dan Hintz]

Doesn't a blind test occur when a rod user is taken to a place where there are buried utilities (water & electric) and that user has never been on that site and is able to locate the buried lines with no prior knowledge of the site?

How did a person who had never been in my yard find my, fully buried existing well, septic system, and downspout drains which do not run straight out from the house?
Since I wasn't there to see what happened, I can only guess. I could pull site plans for your place for a few bucks (don't they pull a permit for this sort of thing anyway?)... I could use my (his) experience as a whatever to make an educated guess on the best place to run a sewage line (always downhill, away from boulders, towards an open area for the drainage field, etc.)... I could look for disturbances in the natural lay of the land to surmise digging had happened there, and so on and so on.

If I went into an area that has a pretty wide water table at 50', it looks like magic when I say "dig here, you'll hit water by 60 feet"... and lo and behold, you hit water. Five feet away in any direction I'd likely hit water at the same depth, but that's not what people remember. For reasons that remain a mystery, the rods swing only over a 1' square patch... if drilling is done and nothing comes up, "it's approximate", a new hole is dug 5-10' away and surprise, surprise, water is hit. That's not rocket science, it's the law of averages. In an area that has a wide water table, your chances of hitting a pocket are pretty high, so dowsing looks good to those who believe... to a scientist, it's nothing more than fitting the data to suit the theory.

Why do some dowsers only find water, some only find electrical lines, and others claim to do all of the above? How is it they can find a 2'-deep buried wire with 2 gram-per-foot wire braid in it, but they pass right over a 2,000 gram iron skillet 6" under the surface of a junkyard with no perceivable twitch? Does the water need to be moving to create a sensable electric field? Not likely, as water is rarely flowing in a waste drain pipe... but a clay pipe that contains little more than residual moisture and human feces is supposedly found without issue. So what makes that area any different than any other? What if there was just a huge rain and the surrounding area was flooded with water... betcha a dowser will still claim to find the pipe... maybe now because it has less water than the surrounding area?

That's a lot going on from a subconscious standpoint than people realize or even want to admit. The owner of Clever Hans, the counting horse, swore up and down his horse could actually do math, from basic addition/subtraction to square roots and fractions... he honestly believed it could. In the end, though, we now know (via double-blind tests) Clever Hans was picking up on subtle visual clues in the people around him. Once those clues were removed, the horse suddenly had no more talent at math than a newborn. Even when confronted with the proof Clever Hans was not actually doing anything other than reading body language, his owner refused to believe otherwise... strong beliefs are tricky that way.

[Chris Kennedy]

Oh yeah, statistics. You make them say anything you want them to say. Math is corrupt.

Wow -- as a practitioner of mathematics, I have been called a variety of things, though never corrupt. That's a new one.

[Greg Peterson]

Wow -- as a practitioner of mathematics, I have been called a variety of things, though never corrupt. That's a new one.

Yeah, mathematics is like, all sciencey and stuff. How do we know all those numbers and squigley things on the chalk board really add up? ;)

[Joe Angrisani]

....I use a single, L-shaped rod, and it takes a lot of concentration to keep it pointed away from me but still parallel to the ground. Once it starts to swing, I have to move my hand to compensate or it will all but fall out of my hand--the pull is surprisingly strong.....

Please, please, OH PLEASE tell me why, then, aren't you going to go claim your million bucks????

[Greg Peterson]

Please, please, OH PLEASE tell me why, then, aren't you going to go claim your million bucks????

Seems a little on the confrontational side to me. Until I see scientific evidence supporting the claims of dowsing I remain a ardent skeptic. However, I think it is unfair to challenge someone for not being able to or wanting to take Randi's challenge. Their own experiences likely satisfies their opinion on the matter, confident that it works with enough regularity so as to not be chance.

Calling them out is unnecessary.

[Joe Angrisani]

It's a MILLION DOLLARS, Greg. We're not talking some $10 prize at the county fair. It comes down to a simple "prove it", and with a million dollars at the finish line, Jason is either foolish or lying about his abilities if he doesn't go get his Randi prize. If he comes back with some "I don't need the money" response, I beg him to do it anyway and donate the $1,000,000 to a worthy charity.

[Jim Underwood]

Jeez Joe... back up. You're going over the line with your attack on Jason.

[Scott Shepherd]

Calling someone a fool or a liar on this public forum is against the Terms of Service if I recall correctly.

Very uncalled for.

[Dan Friedrichs]

Science isn't always polite, guys - the truth is what's important. If someone said they could cure cancer, using a treatment that many others have found ineffective, but they were unwilling to demonstrate the cure under the scrutiny of others....what would you think of them? ("fool" and "liar" may be a little harsh, but is there a better word?)

I think anyone who is unwilling to make an effort to prove their position must be harboring some internal beliefs that their claims won't hold up to scrutiny.

[Joe Angrisani]

Attack? Of course not. Challenge? You bet.

But I fixed it so as not to offend. My bad.

[Scott Shepherd]

And there we have it, the worst of the creek." If I don't agree with you, then you must be a liar or a fool. "

Time to put this thread to rest mod's. It's gone far beyond a reasonable conversation and dipped into name calling.

[Dan Hintz]

Awww, maaaaannnn... I had hopes this thread would have gone in a somewhat different direction...

[Belinda Barfield]

I've been following this thread and it has become one of those I'm right/you're wrong so just admit it threads. Come on folks. If one chooses to believe in God one can have a quiet faith without having to prove the existence of God to anyone. If I, or anyone else here chooses to believe in powers that you believe to be nonexistent, what difference does it make? Believe you are right, feel superior, but don't berate me because I don't believe as you believe. Go your way, live and let live, any other cliche you want to insert here. We're all on the Creek because we enjoy the friendship and comraderie. It is totally inconsiderate to behave in a fashion that causes Dan's thread to get locked. Let's all just agree to disagree.

[Jeff Bratt]

I'm just amazed at how many people believe such superstitious nonsense.

I think it's mostly misunderstanding. The attitude that "scientists don't know how the world really works" is unfortunately pervasive in many places. And there's can be understandable reasons for that attitude - maybe past contact with someone who was both overbearing and wrong. But, in general, scientists are actually pretty open-minded if there is real data to support someone's claim. Unfortunately, what constitutes a good experiment that produces reliable data is usually not understood by non-scientists.

First - a statement of exactly what you are testing or observing and clear criteria for success or failure.

Second - a detailed procedure saying how the experiment is carried out. You need take into to account everything you can think of that might prove you wrong.

Third - an accurate record of all the data from multiple repetitions of the experiment.

Fourth - an analysis of your data, and a description of what you found that is sufficiently complete for someone else to reproduce your experiment and get the same results.

Fifth - listen to other knowledgeable people to see if there is something you've overlooked that might explain your results is a more conventional way - instead of a new discovery.

This process is the heart of the "Scientific Method". Most informal experiments or anecdotes neglect some or all of these steps. If you can get significant results using this process, and someone else can reproduce them, then you can start to think you have discovered something. One of the main benefits is to keep you from deluding yourself. Practitioners of super-natural arts are usually quite sincere in their beliefs, and can be mystified or angry when things don't turn out as they hoped.

A description of the Nov 1990 Kassel, Germany dowsing trials can be found here (in two parts)...
http://www.randi.org/pdf/swift1-1.pdf
http://www.randi.org/pdf/swift1-2.pdf

Twenty dowsers were very confident that they could:
a) predict whether water was flowing through a pipe or not - the location of the pipe was even marked. (More people were found who thought they could locate flowing water than some of the other less conventional things that are dowsed for.)
b) locate a bag of gold coins inside one of ten plastic boxes

[Joe Angrisani]

I've been following this thread and it has become one of those I'm right/you're wrong so just admit it threads. Come on folks. If one chooses to believe in God one can have a quiet faith without having to prove the existence of God to anyone. If I, or anyone else here chooses to believe in powers that you believe to be nonexistent, what difference does it make? Believe you are right, feel superior, but don't berate me because I don't believe as you believe. Go your way, live and let live, any other cliche you want to insert here. We're all on the Creek because we enjoy the friendship and comraderie. It is totally inconsiderate to behave in a fashion that causes Dan's thread to get locked. Let's all just agree to disagree.

I see what you're saying, but it has nothing to do with God or quiet faith. It's not an I'm right/you're wrong thing like a religious opinion. We've been talking about a physical act NO ONE on planet Earth has been able to do under controlled circumstances, then someone on The Creek claims they actually do this amazing act. The thread has been full of third-party comments by people "who know people who know someone who does it". But Jason set the bar and proclaimed first-hand that he can do it, and that the force is so strong he has to fight it when divining or the rods will fall out of his hands. We have someone RIGHT HERE who says they can do what has been dribbled on about for four pages. Why do people feel it is so wrong to inquire as to why he won't step up and prove it?

I never said "I was right". I never said or felt "I was superior". And I didn't berate him. Geeze, people, grow some skin. Don't be so darned sensitive over two nouns. I just posted that he should take his amazing ability and prove it. The thread is about dowsing and Jason says he, personally, can dowse. Use that 1-in-7,000,000,000-humans skill HE claims he has and get a million bucks for a charity.

[David Weaver]

If they pull, mount them in a mount with springs. Certainly the rods pulling on the springs is something that could be videotaped, we'd all be able to see it.

Our well driller used a stick when he drilled at our house. I think, living on a granite formation, that you could drill anywhere. I don't remember how many test holes he had to drill before he found water.

We didn't bug him about it, he charged the same with or without the stick. If it makes him feel good to walk around with a stick before drilling, so be it. He hit a 25 gpm flow at about 125 feet or something. I have trouble believing the flow was pulling on his stick from that far down.

I've also had too many math and statistics classes to believe much stuff that you can't test to show some sort of quantitative statistical significance (like vitamin supplements and holistic health products).

However, if you do believe in the rods, I have no intention of trying to change your mind. There are bigger issues in the world, this isn't something that cranks me up.

I do get major p.o.'ed when I hear nontraditional medicine type folks bashing scientific medicine and coming up with one excuse after the other why they should not be held to the same statistical standard that traditional medicine is held to, while they bob their eyeballs around looking for people who look like an easy mark, or who look like they are desparate because they are truly terminal.

[Jeff Monson]

Awww, maaaaannnn... I had hopes this thread would have gone in a somewhat different direction...

What's wrong with straight south?? Its warmer there right? Downright hot is what I hear?

I will have to admit, this thread is quite fun to read.

[Scott Shepherd]

I'm just about 100% certain this won't change anyone's mind, but I thought it was pretty interesting to watch. Interesting because the camera shows his hands fairly well and he even appears to be trying to turn it up and can't. One shot of his fingers at the end show his knuckles turning white from trying to squeeze it so hard to keep from turning.

I have no explanation, it doesn't make me believe or not believe, but I did think it was quite interesting to watch, and see his hands up close, clearly not doing anything tricky.

Again, doesn't mean it's working, or not working, for me, just something interesting to watch.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m-q-sRSsx0&feature=related

[Greg Portland]

If you grip the stick tightly in an underhand grip then yes, it will continue to point downward (and make your knuckles white). Due to the stick angles you can twist your hand back and forth and rub bark off the branches too.

[Dan Hintz]

Steve,

I'm not seeing a link to anything... are we moving this thread into the realm of mind reading? ;)

Ah, my bad... I'm rebuilding my system as I type this, so Flash wasn't yet installed.

[Mike Henderson]

I'm just about 100% certain this won't change anyone's mind, but I thought it was pretty interesting to watch. Interesting because the camera shows his hands fairly well and he even appears to be trying to turn it up and can't. One shot of his fingers at the end show his knuckles turning white from trying to squeeze it so hard to keep from turning.

I have no explanation, it doesn't make me believe or not believe, but I did think it was quite interesting to watch, and see his hands up close, clearly not doing anything tricky.

Again, doesn't mean it's working, or not working, for me, just something interesting to watch.

If it's moving "in his hands" it ought to work without him holding it. Perhaps suspended by a string in the middle with him holding the string. Funny, you never hear of it working that way, it always requires someone to hold the material (wood, metal, etc.). Just like a ouija board. Complete nonsense.

Mike

[John Coloccia]

re: the video, he's clearly twisting his wrists inward. Once you do that, you force the twig to twist in your hands. To straighten the twig after that move would require literally twisting the wood, a feet that he's not apt to do with any sort of write twisting or bicep flexing. He conveniently hid the major portion of the wrist cocking inwards behind a tree.

It's the act of gripping that shape tightly that forces the rod either up or down. Facing straight out in front of you is an unstable position. It want to face up or down and will with the slightest of motions. Just try for yourself. I'm playing with a coat hanger here. It's obvious once you play with it. He didn't even have to make such an exaggerated move.

I will be delighted to post a video showing EXACTLY what's going on here if anyone is interested.

Anyhow, I wouldn't base anything on this one guy, for or against.

[Jeff Bratt]

... and see his hands up close, clearly not doing anything tricky.

There is obvious movement of his hands that forces the branch to point down:
1:48 - 1:52 hands and stick are level
1:56 - 2:05 wrists rotated into shallow V shape and stick points down (somewhat obscured behind tree)
2:17 - 2:23 hands and stick are level
2:25 - 2:32 wrists rotated into shallow V shape and stick points down again

[Brian Ashton]

I see what you're saying, but it has nothing to do with God or quiet faith. It's not an I'm right/you're wrong thing like a religious opinion. We've been talking about a physical act NO ONE on planet Earth has been able to do under controlled circumstances, then someone on The Creek claims they actually do this amazing act. The thread has been full of third-party comments by people "who know people who know someone who does it". But Jason set the bar and proclaimed first-hand that he can do it, and that the force is so strong he has to fight it when divining or the rods will fall out of his hands. We have someone RIGHT HERE who says they can do what has been dribbled on about for four pages. Why do people feel it is so wrong to inquire as to why he won't step up and prove it?

I never said "I was right". I never said or felt "I was superior". And I didn't berate him. Geeze, people, grow some skin. Don't be so darned sensitive over two nouns. I just posted that he should take his amazing ability and prove it. The thread is about dowsing and Jason says he, personally, can dowse. Use that 1-in-7,000,000,000-humans skill HE claims he has and get a million bucks for a charity.

LOL I guess we'll have to agree to disagree... I agree with Belinda my post was out of line no question... It crossed the line of respect so Belinda my apologies to you and those that were offended.

[Brian Ashton]

I'm just about 100% certain this won't change anyone's mind, but I thought it was pretty interesting to watch. Interesting because the camera shows his hands fairly well and he even appears to be trying to turn it up and can't. One shot of his fingers at the end show his knuckles turning white from trying to squeeze it so hard to keep from turning.

I have no explanation, it doesn't make me believe or not believe, but I did think it was quite interesting to watch, and see his hands up close, clearly not doing anything tricky.

Again, doesn't mean it's working, or not working, for me, just something interesting to watch.


What I noticed before I read your response was his clenched hands turn inwards to each other. Where I first noticed something odd was at about 1:20 when he let go with one hand... When he walks around holding the twig in both hands the row of knuckles on each hand are in line and horizontal to the ground. But when he arrives over the spot where the well is his hand rotate inwards towards each other so the knuckles on each hand are no longer in a horizontal line. He says he's turning his fists inwards back towards himself in an attempt to fight the forces pulling the stick downwards but he doesn't say why he's rotating his fists towards each other, which is what would cause the Y shaped twig to point downwards more so than rotating your wrists forwards away from you (which he appears to be trying to do the opposite). Related to this is that twig is nowhere near strong or stiff enough to force a person to rotate their hands like he did inwards; it would break long before that or simply pull his hands straight down also at the very minimum. Did you notice there is no appreciable bend in the twig even though he's apparently trying hard to fight it. Also then he's saying the twig is pulling at an incredible force downwards as indicated by his body language and speech but he's also mysteriously able to turn it off and walk away at will when he want's to... I know no force of nature where humans can turn it off when it's convenient to them - do you?

Also, oak isn't the only species of tree to use correct? I've heard willow for some is the wood of choice... it all depends on where you are in the world and what grows there... So why don't the trees in the area bend when they're over a well like the twig does. He's adamant the forces pulling downward on the twig are substantial so in all likelihood there should be an effect on the live oaks in the area that are also over water wells. Or are all you water witches saying you're the conduit that makes this happen.

We do agree on one thing it didn't convince me. All I saw was a slight of hand trick.

[Rich Engelhardt]

Ok all you skeptics.....
I have proof positive water witching works.

I asked my Oija board..

[Chris Kennedy]

Ok all you skeptics.....
I have proof positive water witching works.

I asked my Oija board..

My Magic 8 ball said "Don't count on it."

[Keith Parker]

Dan, as you said "I'm not trying to argue" either. A question. Did any of these mis-marked or marked in the wrong place utility lines get dug up to confirm there location, or were they just left be so as not to disturb them?

I mean did you see these lines with your own eyes?

Thank you.

later,

[Belinda Barfield]

Joe and Brian, my comments were directed specifically at you. Little clarification . . . I really don't have an opinion one way or the other on water witching, dowsing, whatever. I've seen people who claim they can do it (my grandfather) but I have no proof that he could find water, or if it was just a fun trick to entertain the kids. I do believe that some things can be influenced by one's belief in them. I had a great aunt who had several special "skills". One was supposedly the ability to "talk fire out of a burn", meaning she could quote bible scripture over a burned area and the pain would go away. It worked for a lot of people but, as has been discussed regarding placebos, I think a lot of the reason it worked is because the people wanted it to work and believed it would. My greatgrandmother could tell us the phone was going to ring just before it did, but she probably had better than average hearing and the phone made some noise just before it rang that she could hear. Come to think of it, she also knew before anyone else when someone in the community died. So, who knows?

[Scott Shepherd]

So here's a different type. Many are 100% positive the guy in the video above is manipulating it (let's see your video clip proving you can do what you are accusing him of), so here's a different type.

Funny thing is, this looked a lot more "hoaxy" to me than anything else. Yet, if you hold something the way he describes, I personally cannot get anything to rotate like he does. The top piece of run through the bend index finger and the other fingers are straight. There is no way for me (you might be built different) to rotate anything with that grip. And a slight tilting wouldn't make it move that radically.

Again, not saying it works or doesn't work.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W95J85E7DNU

[Phil Thien]

Yet, if you hold something the way he describes, I personally cannot get anything to rotate like he does.

Just tilt your hand slightly and the rod will turn.

Why do the rods always turn inwards, especially when holding only one rod? How do the rods know which hand they're being held in? Are there R/L rods?

[Dan Hintz]

Why do the rods always turn inwards, especially when holding only one rod? How do the rods know which hand they're being held in? Are there R/L rods?
I was going to make the same observation... they either both tilt inwards, or both outwards. I don't believe I've ever seen someone do it where they both point in the same direction... at most, one stays forward while the other moves.

Watching that guy check for the hose... a simple blind test would be to blindfold him, and have him walk towards the hose placed at a random spot in the driveway. His rod seems to be very accurate, so he should have no problem doing that, and 10-15' worth of space should show whether or not he's fooling himself.

[John Coloccia]

(let's see your video clip proving you can do what you are accusing him of)

It's uploading now...should be up in a few minutes :)

[John Coloccia]

Here you go. My divining rod video. Take from it what you will.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LoDPzeejJs

[Bill Huber]

Here you go. My divining rod video. Take from it what you will.



That does not prove anything..... I noticed you had the green clips on it and I am sure they have some time of cat detector in them.:D

[Belinda Barfield]

Excellent video. I would like to nominate Marvin for a Tubey (or whatever the top acting award is for a You Tube video). Excellent job Marvin.

[Belinda Barfield]

That does not prove anything..... I noticed you had the green clips on it and I am sure they have some time of cat detector in them.:D

Oh my gosh, Bill! I was so fascinated by how the cat didn't do anything to give himself away that I completely failed to note the cat detector clips.

[Scott Shepherd]

Clearly your cat had just drank water :p

[Joe Angrisani]

John... Do you think you could make a divining rod that dowses for snake oil?

[Chuck Stone]

Here you go. My divining rod video. Take from it what you will.


I was skeptical until you also showed it from the side.

ooooo .. creepy! Where do I send money?

[Chris Kennedy]

Here you go. My divining rod video. Take from it what you will.


After a really crappy day, that was just what I needed!

Cheers,

Chris

[Phil Thien]

Here you go. My divining rod video. Take from it what you will.



LOL, awesome!

[John Coloccia]

What's funny is that I had a glass of water sitting on the floor next to me. If you look at around :50 you'll see me turn around and notice that the kitty cat happened to hop up on his "kitty condo" at just the right time. LOL. I had to quickly reconfigure it to dowse for kitty cats instead. It's OK as I are an engineer and was able to quickly reconfigure it for feline detection.

[Tom Stenzel]

Near my place of work there's some railroad tracks getting rebuilt. Yesterday there was truck from a utility service locating company parked nearby, I asked where their forked sticks and bent metal rods were.


Man, some people have no sense of humor!

-Tom Stenzel

[Jeff Monson]

John that video is down right creepy. I think you should get on board with Chris Angel and start a new tv series. He could levitate and you could dose for kitty's. Come up with a catchy name "Cat freak" or "devine mind" I think you'd be rich.

[Greg Peterson]

John, were any cats harmed in the production of this video?

[John Coloccia]

John that video is down right creepy. I think you should get on board with Chris Angel and start a new tv series. He could levitate and you could dose for kitty's. Come up with a catchy name "Cat freak" or "devine mind" I think you'd be rich.

I reconfigured it ealier tonight to dowse for goldfish but it didn't work. It kept leading me back to the bathroom. All that water must have been interfering with the signal.

On a serious note: the only reason I bother to take a second out of my day for this stuff, other than the mildly light hearted comedic value, is that there are crooks out there selling these sorts of services and devices, ripping people off. That makes me very angry. I do believe that in many cases people can subconsciously pick up on subtle clues. I swear that I was not trying to manipulate the rods at all. I was merely thinking of the rods moving. That was sufficient for a strong effect, even with no practice. That, to me, is fascinating. There's plenty left to learn, but not at a cost of defrauding people. I would be happy if they would simply admit that the rods are a tool for tapping into your own sensitive perceptions of your environment, maybe, and not mystical hocus pocus.

[John Coloccia]

John, were any cats harmed in the production of this video?

Marvin twisted his left-front ankle when he jumped off the roof of the kitty condo. He's an old cat and should know better, but he's very stubborn and still insists on doing all his own stunts.

[Bob Turkovich]

It's OK as I are an engineer and was able to quickly reconfigure it for feline detection.

Wow!!! "Engineer speak" in a thread about divining rods! Go figure.....

BTW - anyone else think John (in the video) looks like a young Norm Abrams? Were those safety glasses?

[Hilel Salomon]

Well, I graduated the U. of Penn as a physicist, got a Ph.D. in history, and consider myself a skeptic. But I also allow for the unknown. In other words I apply skepticism to my own skepticism. Many of the most brilliant scientists were and are very religious people and some of them are mystics as well. Read the experiments on studies of the Paranormal and you might reconsider the concept of ghosts. My guess is that the mind can do incredible things. Wordy introduction to the fact that most of the well diggers in my area of VA use dowsing rods. A few of them fail miserably and are forced to make multiple digs. Some of them stake their businesses on their success ratio and do not charge for failed digs. I have never witnessed attempts to find water lines, but I certainly have witnessed their attempts to find the proper source for a well, and their success rate is absolutely remarkable. The idea that science will always give us an exact answer is, IMO , unreliable. Too many controversies remain controversies despite decades of research and experimentation. Don't get me wrong. If and when we can come up with a scientific method for digging a well, I'll opt for that in a country minute. Until that time, I won't reject dowsing.

[Dan Hintz]

A few of them fail miserably and are forced to make multiple digs. Some of them stake their businesses on their success ratio and do not charge for failed digs.
If it's such a reliable method, they should all stake their business on it, and you should never be charged for failed digs.

I have never witnessed attempts to find water lines, but I certainly have witnessed their attempts to find the proper source for a well, and their success rate is absolutely remarkable.
Based upon what factors? If I cover an olympic pool with sod and go hunting for water, I'll pretty much have a 100% success rate drilling wherever I walk. Does that make the method I use to find water magic or foolproof? Certainly not. But the same thing holds true if they're drilling in an area that is widely populated with pockets/caverns of water... I could drill almost anywhere an have a good chance of hitting a good spot on the first hit... my chances of hitting increase significantly on the second attempt, and so on. Again, the only part of my method that works is perseverance, not some unknown, unmeasurable quantity.

[Greg Peterson]

Many of the most brilliant scientists were and are very religious people and some of them are mystics as well.

And many are not. This fact is irrelevant.


I have never witnessed attempts to find water lines, but I certainly have witnessed their attempts to find the proper source for a well, and their success rate is absolutely remarkable.

I am not challenging your personal observations. But isn't also possible that water existed where they did not sense any water?



The idea that science will always give us an exact answer is, IMO , unreliable. Too many controversies remain controversies despite decades of research and experimentation.

Many of the scientific controversies in the public domain these days can be traced to people or organizations that have a clear ideology or a vested interest in creating a debate where none existed. It's one thing for those within the scientific community to have a debate or challenge a theory. That's what advances our understanding of the world. It's another matter for a public personality, a layman, to parade as some kind of an expert, trumpeting the minorities dissenting opinion as evidence of corruption or conspiracy.

I will not abandon the principles that delivered us our standard of living simply because those same principles fail to validate an article of my faith. YMMV.

[Neal Clayton]

Maybe it's the environment, the person, and the rods, so isolating it to one thing isn't going to prove that it works or doesn't work.

that's not the point. haven't read the whole thread, since i assume most of it is hocus pocus or people laughing at hocus pocus, but here's the point....

until you can prove something to be true, it is assumed to be false.

you don't start with the assumption of a random statement or claim being factual. there is no evidence that people with sticks in their hand can reliably find water. therefore it isn't true. if they could point to any sort of verifiable method by which this works, that could be tested and observed, they could claim a basis in fact. but since there is no method, it's voodoo by default.

speaking of voodoo, the voodoo priests and priestesses in new orleans sacrificed chickens before the first game the year the saints won the super bowl.........

but then again they sacrifice those chickens every year and prior to that year the saints had lost more than they won about 90% of the time.


Science hasn't proven that they do not work.

yes, it has. until something is proven to have a basis in demonstrable fact, it doesn't work! absence of fact = fiction


if everyone had this attitude we would still be wandering around wearing animal skins and making fire by rubbing sticks together.

animal skins work. rubbing sticks together also works. we can demonstrate these things with 100% accuracy. animal skins trap body heat. rubbing sticks causes friction which results in heat.


I couldn't have said it better myself.

It reminds me of the way some atheists are just as reverential, evangelical and often more militantly intolerant of opposing views than the Bible-thumpingest Baptist they claim to be above.

As Donald Rumsfeld once famously said, "Absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence."

Just because I have never caught a fish in Crater Lake doesn't prove there are no fish in Crater Lake.

I think to truly approach a question "scientifically," the first thing you have to do is say, "I'll admit every possibility." Closed-mindedness is very un-scientific, IMHO. It stinks of prejudice, bias and subjectivity.

donald rumsfeld is a politician and thus a professional liar. that's pretty much the worst example ever.

that'd be like obama saying he's japanese and by virtue of him being a famous politican, giving that statement an automatic basis in reality.

you could start with the means of approaching something scientifically by re-reading the scientific method guidelines that they taught us all in the first year of high school, and disregarding those who have an ulterior motive to discredit science for personal or political gain. it still applies (believe it or not)!

[Chris Kennedy]

yes, it has. until something is proven to have a basis in demonstrable fact, it doesn't work! absence of fact = fiction

Absence of proof does not make something false. All absence of proof states is that it has not been proven to be true. If this were the case, any theory is false prior to its proof that it is true. Take, for example, special relativity. Special relativity was true long before Einstein was born, let alone developed the theory, let alone it being verified. It didn't suddenly become true.

Proving that something is false is just as much work as proving something is true. You don't get either one by default.

Cheers,

Chris

[Neal Clayton]

yeah, but the problem is you're wrong.


1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.walking around with sticks in your hand claiming to find water fails at #2. there is no rational explanation for how two sticks can find water. it fails again at #3. absent a possible explanation as mentioned in #2, there is no testable hypothesis for why two sticks can find water. #4 is moot. there is nothing to test. you cannot skip #2 and #3, jumping straight to #4, and claim that a blind hog finding an acre is proof, nor can you say that lack of proof makes for an equivalent opinion. we're not talking about opinion, we're talking about fact. "I like cheese on my burger" is an opinion. "I find water with sticks in my hand" is not.


this is the way the factual, real world works. give me a reason why two sticks can find water, and we can start over. the reasons will also have to be provable, mind you. "I saw a guy do it" or "I heard about a guy who met a guy who said a guy can do it" is not a valid response. you have to start by telling us WHY it works.

i realize that people have taken and run with what started as a political argument to justify believing in whatever they believe in. i also realize that people who do not subscribe to such pseudo beliefs often don't point out to people who do that they are in fact wrong out of politeness.

but that doesn't change the fact that the real world operates under the rule that if you can't tell us WHY something works and the WHY is provable, you are wrong.

[John Keeton]

Guys, I think all the ideas, thoughts, opinions and attempts to convince on both sides have run their course. The exchange has been informative, but it is time to put this puppy to bed before it goes south.

Thanks!