Long Range Locaters?

Picketwire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Try as many people
> as it takes to have 99% confidence in your results
>


picketwire, let's just grant that all-that-you are saying is true. And that dowsing works. Then why do we see it fail DBT all the time ?

All we have are anecdotal stories. Of which all could be chalked up to more-plausible explanations. For example, there's one fellow I've spoken to recently, who "finds" things . That to him, are proof that it works. Kind of hard to argue with results, eh ?)

But when you quiz him for what he's found, and the way he goes about it, it's like this: He walks out in a field to where the rod points. Then he turns on his metal detector to "pinpoint". Lo & behold, he finds a piece of wire, or a pulltab, or a coin, etc....

Doesn't it occur to persons that do a "test" like this, that there might simply be metal , at any place that humans have congregated at ? In other words, odds are, if you turn on your detector in ANY random field, at any random spot, that ... yes .... you're likely to get metal of some sort. Hence that's not a DBT. It lends itself to more plausible explanations.

This is not ridicule. This is an explanation for what's going on. And to show that the rods do nothing. They are merely pointing to where you tilt it.

First of all I asked did you read the article. You said "Yes, I glanced through it." So the answer should be, "No, but I glanced through it, read the first oldest studies, ignored multiple test with multiple participants and found the results for which I was looking". "In spite of the large number of investigations made into dowsing, its status remains unclear. This is largely a result of sloppy experimental procedures and or report writing". I believe this was his conclusion. To me it meant it wasn't proven scientifically one way or the other. And youtube as a scientific journal? I suppose the comment section is the peer review? So do you believe everything you see on youtube? Here is the first result on google for double blind test, "Let’s take a closer look at what we mean by a double-blind study and how this type of procedure works. As mentioned previously, double-blind indicates that the participants and the experimenters are unaware of who is receiving the real treatment. What exactly do we mean by ‘treatment?’ In a psychology experiment, the treatment is the level of the independent variable that the experimenters are manipulating. This can be contrasted with a single-blind study in which the experimenters are aware of which participants are receiving the treatment while the participants remain unaware." If your participants (more than one in each test and enough to establish a high probability) on youtube meet the criteria, I would very much like the links. I'm also sure that Albert Einstein loses credibility by predicting that metal detecting would not be popular to a very small segment of society. I think it proves the theory of relativity is wrong [sarc.] Besides that he has been dead for years and some others that have been dead for years believe the earth was flat according to your "test drive"..

Picketwire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... and found the results for whi
> ch I was looking".

picketwire, in any testings of multiple individuals, there will always be certain test subjects & individual tests, that ...... yes .... look very compelling. Ie.: , yes, they "beat the odds". So to you, you're asking why I appear to "toss out those results" and only look at the results of the failure tests/days. Right ?

But this is a little like roulette or slot machines: Yes, there will be random streaks where ... yes ... you win more than you loose. And yes, if you isolate ONLY THOSE wins (and ignore the stretches/games where you lost), then yes: Roulette or slot machines can be made to seem like there's rhyme & reason. However, you can't do that. You can't toss out the loosing streaks. In order for it to be DBT, you have to calculate in the losses. To ensure that it was not eventual random chance that ... yes .... someone's gonna have a lucky guessing streak now and then.

But let's just cut to the chase: If that study showed positive merit to dowsing, then why did the author himself say it was "inconclusive" ?

If these techniques and or detectors were infact successful.
This forum owner and loads of others here would be on like a duck on a June-bug
They are NOT it seems.
That in itself should tell folks something.

Just stick to what works.

Rabbits out of hats, etc. won’t get one far in life.

This topic here rears its ugly head every now and then.
Same outcome though every time-Baloney or Snake Oil. Take your pick.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2019 06:52PM by tnsharpshooter.

tnsharpshooter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If these techniques and or detectors were infact s
> uccessful.
> This forum owner and loads of others here would be
> on like a duck on a June-bug
> They are NOT it seems.
> That in itself should tell folks something.
>

To which they would merely push-back and say: "Those persons who were un-successful merely didn't practice long enough. Didn't do it right, etc...

Which, as you may have noticed, is a never-ending convenient fall-back. So if the tester tries for a year, the advocates would merely say " You should try it 2 yrs.". If the tester tries it for 2 years, then the advocates say "You should try it for 4 yrs.". And so on till infinity. It will NEVER be that the method isn't meritorious and successful. It will always/only be that you were "doing it wrong" and "need more practice".

I have said before and will say again, I do not know if dowsing works. I believe that long range locators do not work but whether I believe it works or not is inconsequential. Science is not belief based. I have found tests that go both ways and reported them. I expected critical scientific review of both sides. The first article I cited had a myriad of tests but no one critiqued any one of them. I can see that there is considerable bias toward not believing it works. All I hear is the "even a blind hog finds an acorn", people believed in a flat earth, all double blind testing proves it does not work without the links to these double blind tests and ridicule. I can agree that using what you know works, like a metal detector, is a really good idea. However the "if it works someone would be really rich" is not scientific data. Tell the truth, would you report to everyone that you found a cache of $20 gold pieces? What would the results be.

I found some more with ammo for both sides--all I ask is to convince me which is right and which is wrong.
"Can scientific testing prove dowsing works?" by Dr. John Ankerberg--links to studies that say it does not work but he thinks the sticks or rods move because of the occult.
"Finding water with a forked stick may not be a hoax" published by Popular Mechanics--cites a peer reviewed test from Germany on drilling for water in Africa. In my opinion, this is the most compelling study for the dowsing works crowd.
"Dowsing: A review" by Anne Miller--cites double blind tests saying dowsing does work and gives links to said tests one of which was done in 2007--very interesting but she is a dowser..
My conclusions so far: If you believe it does not work, you can find scientific test concluding it does not work. If you believe it does work, you can find scientific test concluding it does work. That is what I consider inconclusive.
I'm still on the fence, convince me using science. Note: you better explain how to debunk the ten year testing of Professor Betz of the University of Munich on searching for water in Sri Lanka as this one has me leaning.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2019 04:40PM by Picketwire.

"... I have found tests that go both ways ..."

Okay, I have a confession to make. If people on this site was biased for dowsing, I would be presenting mostly tests saying it does not work.. In the long run, it really makes no difference who is right or wrong. However I do find the thread very interesting concerning the scientific method. I think the ones who answer according to science protocol are the ones that are most likely to give unbiased opinions on metal detecting, the ones who are willing to spend the time to research the information. I respect every ones opinion and know that there is much knowledge of metal detecting on this site. I am glad no one got mad or resorted to name calling. And while I respect everyones' opinion here, I am pretty sure they are mostly just that, opinions. I did find it interesting that the two that I most respect on scientific results, Mr. Dankowski and Geotech, did not respond to the thread at all. If I offended anyone, I am truly sorry. That was not and is not my intent. Happy Hunting and signing out.

Picketwire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>... If you believe it does not
> work, you can find scientific test concluding it d
> oes not work. ...

And let's make a gentleman's agreement : If I link you to some DBT's showing it doesn't work any better than random chance, then will you go public here with that acknowledgement ? Or will there be the typical roll-out of pushbacks ? Eg.: Unfair or rigged tests, sunspots, magnetic particles in the soil, un-qualified dowsers who were being tested (need more practice), etc... ? You will see, in the tests, that both sides agree to the conditions and protocols and safeguards. So there is NOT anything rigged, blah blah.

As for the links you found of it working : I have no doubt that anecdotal stories and videos of "finds" . And stories of seeming-success do indeed abound. Dudes posed next to a jar of coins they found. Or someone who drills and finds water, etc.... The question is: Was there safeguards to make sure it was DBT, such that other reasons/explanations/rationales can't explain it ? Eg.: eventual random odds, subtle terrain clues, using a detector to pinpoint, drilling for water @ a place where water-exists wherever leaves fall, etc...

Used to Know a guy about 30 years ago..He loved to map dowse..Lights out candles lit type stuff

He lived up in the Appalachians.He was also no hat on the bed and no mirrors in the bedroom type.he had alot of superstitious ways.

But what was incredible was his superstition.Man was a walking encyclopedia of folklore that probably spanned back to the origins of the old world.

I remember one he had about toothache drink (some sort of liquid I forget now) from a cobalt jar to stop the pain.

Guess we all have some sort of superstitious type things we do and dont even know it.I like the collards and black eyed peas on New Years day.HE HE...Good stuff anyday!!

If I hand you knife closed I want it backed closed.Ill still take it back open (its my knife!) but it goes through my head for a minute.LOL

Keith

“I don't care that they stole my idea . . I care that they don't have any of their own”
-Nikola Tesla

Keith Southern Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Used to Know a guy about 30 years ago..He loved to
> map dowse....

Now I can see the dowser crowd trying to wriggle around saying that there's some sort of attraction and science to explain how rods supposedly can find water or metal . Even though, of course, they can't cite the science of how it works. They'll just call it "un-discovered science". And both sides can debate about that.

But when it comes to MAP dowsing : For the life-of-me I can't see how any of them can try to attribute that to some sort of un-discovered science. For that I don't think they can wriggle out of the spooks and supernatural connection.

I believe I have already gone public with the acknowledgment that some "DBT" testing shows dowsing does not work and never made excuses why. I even provided links to them without any gentleman's agreement. I do not believe that I ever used the "typical roll-out pushback." I did not make excuses for either side. I did not post pictures or videos of "dudes posed next to a jar of finds or any such thing. What I posted if you read them were scientific tests done by researchers trained in experimentation that made a case for both sides. I did not interpret them or critique them and most certainly did not make excuses about them being unfair or rigged. I am prepared to challenge bias by both sides but the bias, and everyone is biased, here seems to be totally that it does not work. If the bias was pro-dowsing, I would be challenging that. Am I wrong in posting "DBT" studies that allege that do work? I have already given a link to the 10 year study at the University of Munich that documented over 900 water wells drilled in Sri Lanka, a desert, with over a 90% success rate in an area where even conventional processes were expected to be successful at a rate of less than 50%, Please explain how this is an anecdotal story of seeming success without the typical roll-out pushback of "there is water everywhere". I believe that science should challenge everything and that settled science is not science at all. It was only by challenging the ones that said BS to human flight, that the discovery was made.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2019 07:25PM by Picketwire.

Picketwire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ..... A
> m I wrong in posting "DBT" studies that allege tha
> t do work? ....

My response would be that any test videos, showing that it works, would not be DBT. There is most-likely not safeguards to show that the results couldn't be chalked up to other factors. For example: Non-dowsers going out and picking spots to drill, strictly based on terrain clues. Then compare those results to the dowsers results. And I'll bet they no better or no worse.


I'd have to look at the individual tests, see who was involved, to see if there were more-plausible explanations going on. I have a suspicion that they are not true DBT's.


I have no doubt that scores of videos and reports, written and done by the believers, do in fact abound with "finds". And they might be dressed up to look like a scientific study. And might be quite sincere. And I'm guessing that your reports and links are of that nature. But I would call them anecdotal finds, unless the testing was done with academic rigor, by persons who specialize in such testings.

Picketwire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>.... It was only by challe
> nging the ones that said BS to human flight, that
> the discovery was made.


Bear in mind, that the fact that scientists once thought that heavier than-air flight was impossible, does not .... therefore .... grant merit to any and all notions that can be dreamed up. If something were truly impossible, then : No amount of pointing to past-corrected science, makes something that is impossible become necessarily possible. All that shows is that past science was wrong on that one thing. Not that "any and all things are therefore true & possible".

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Picketwire Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ..... A
> > m I wrong in posting "DBT" studies that allege t
> ha
> > t do work? ....
>
> My response would be that any test videos, showing
> that it works, would not be DBT. There is most-
> likely not safeguards to show that the results cou
> ldn't be chalked up to other factors. For exampl
> e: Non-dowsers going out and picking spots to dri
> ll, strictly based on terrain clues. Then compar
> e those results to the dowsers results. And I'll
> bet they no better or no worse.
>
>
> I'd have to look at the individual tests, see who
> was involved, to see if there were more-plausible
> explanations going on. I have a suspicion that t
> hey are not true DBT's.
>
>
> I have no doubt that scores of videos and reports,
> written and done by the believers, do in fact abou
> nd with "finds". And they might be dressed up to
> look like a scientific study. And might be quite
> sincere. And I'm guessing that your reports and l
> inks are of that nature. But I would call them a
> necdotal finds, unless the testing was done with a
> cademic rigor, by persons who specialize in such t
> estings.

Your response that any test videos are not true DBTs conflict with you offer to supply videos that are DBTs to me in your Gentleman's agreement. None of the links I provided are videos.
Your response saying you'd have to look at individual tests to determine who was involved clearly indicates that you read absolutely none of the links I posted.
The link I asked you to refute was a 10 year study at the University of Munich. Do you think a university in Germany would be dowsing believers? Do you think they ignore academic rigor? Do you think the University of Munich would "dress up" something to make it "look like a scientific study"? Can you imagine the outrage if they did. If you can prove that they did this, I'm sure it would destroy their credibility completely and if they did do this, they should have their credibility destroyed.
Please give your definition of a double blind test, how they work, and how you would design one.
Instead of guessing about whether my reports are of that nature, why don't you read them and check their origin?
"There is most likely", "I am guessing", "I'd have to look"? Is this scientific rigor?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2019 02:58PM by Picketwire.

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Picketwire Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >.... It was only by challe
> > nging the ones that said BS to human flight, tha
> t
> > the discovery was made.
>
>
> Bear in mind, that the fact that scientists once t
> hought that heavier than-air flight was impossible
> , does not .... therefore .... grant merit to any
> and all notions that can be dreamed up. If some
> thing were truly impossible, then : No amount o
> f pointing to past-corrected science, makes someth
> ing that is impossible become necessarily possible
> . All that shows is that past science was wrong o
> n that one thing. Not that "any and all things ar
> e therefore true & possible".

I have made no claims that any and all things are possible for this quote, just that science was wrong on this as it has been on multiple other things.

Picketwire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your response that any test videos are not true DBTs conflict with you offer to supply videos that are DBTs to me in your Gentleman's agreement.

oh, sorry about that. I did not know you'd agreed to take a look at what I considered a DBT . Ok, here's one for you : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VAasVXtCOI

Would like to know your thoughts on that. The usual pushback will be that : The individuals in that particular one study, were not skilled dowsers. And if ever a skeptic goes to post a "Randi" video test, the pushback will be that : Since Randi is a magician, he was therefore somehow foiling and rigging the test, to cause the dowsers to fail. As you can see, I'm quite familiar with the push-back lines. So how about you ? What say you about that video ?


>The link I asked you to refute was a 10 year study at the University of Munich. Do you think a university in Germany would be dowsing believers? Do you think they ignore academic rigor? Do you think the University of Munich would "dress up" something to make it "look like a scientific study"?

You mean this study, right ? : http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.558.6201&rep=rep1&type=pdf

If so, that has been refuted : https://skepticalinquirer.org/1999/01/testing-dowsing-the-failure-of-the-munich-experiments/

You are welcome to show us how the refutation points are not accurate. And btw: I highly respect you for carrying on this discussion. It has inter-woven ties to the md'ing hobby, so it comes up all the time. And I am keenly interested how the advocates square with skeptical views on it. So I do respect that you holding skeptic's "feet to the flame".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2019 03:57PM by Tom_in_CA.

Picketwire Wrote:
>..... Happy Hunting and signing out.


And I fell for it.................

Tom -- the refutation of the study, that you provided a link to, pretty effectively lays out that the Munich study -- had the results of the study been interpreted in a statistically rigorous way -- actually serves as a very strong disproof of dowsing...

As I would have expected...

Steve

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom -- the refutation of the study, that you provi
> ded a link to, pretty effectively lays out that th
> e Munich study -- had the results of the study bee
> n interpreted in a statistically rigorous way -- a
> ctually serves as a very strong disproof
> of dowsing...
>
> As I would have expected...
>
> Steve

Thanx Steve. I wanted to give Picket-wires Munich-study link a "fair shrift" . And as you can see, it had already been analyzed and debunked.

Ok Picket-wire: We are awaiting your input. Still believe in dowsing ?

All Right! Now I feel we are getting somewhere. Here are my observations. Again, you ask if I still believe in dowsing when I have repeatedly said the results are inconclusive and that settled science is not science.
The five minute video I have problems with in that the researcher does not use an unbiased assistant to administer the tests and as such, even though it claims to be a DBT, I do not believe it is. I think it is similar to a challenge issued by Monte where he has buried a certain number of items (I don't remember how many) and he tells you what they are, and if you lay down $20 and can identify each individual one correctly, he will give you substantially more money back. No one has passed this single blind (he administers it but the items are hidden) test. It in no way disproves the efficacy of a metal detector.
Second, the Munich study is not my test but a cited link. A fair shrift to me would mean reading the thing. This is the test to which I referred. Saying that it has already been analyzed and debunked would entail a lot more than analysis of one small part of the study, the one about finding water that was running in a house. Here, the author of the article first accuses the researcher as being a dowser and as such, biased. The same could be said of his anti-dowsing bias. Then this Professor of Behavioral Physiology gives a statistical analysis of the tests in the house, which if you read the Munich test, Mr. Betz agrees it does not establish anything other than studying the ones who did better in that they might be useful in other testing. I agree with the statistics demonstrating that this test does not prove that dowsing works. Then this unbiased Prof of Physiology pronounces, that's it, total proof and there will probably never be another test because this totally debunked everything about dowsing, that is, the science is settled. The refutation in no way effectively lays out the Munich study, only one minuscule part of it. It doesn't take 10 years to study this. To effectively lay out the Munich study, you have to read it which, if you did, I do not believe that one would consider the information in the study debunked. I am sorry but a 5 page rebuttal that begins with an accusation, picks one minor part of the test, claims that the author of the test concludes from this test that dowsing works, and then claims that the science is settled does not sway me to believe that it is settled.
The Munich test author observed multiple failures to find water by dowsing and cites them, Mr. Hanson in the first article I posted, does the same, but both consider other studies and critiques them better than I ever could. If Professor Betz had stopped after observing that there were multiple failures, he would have been like a multitude of others and concluded there is no science in it. However, in his study, he found "that's odd" phenomenon and pursued it. He urges more study on specific parts. He does not say this proves dowsing works all the time. He does not say some mystical force which has never been recognized before is the reason anyone has had success dowsing. In his conclusions, he states... You tell me! How about that, you don't even have to read the whole thing although I know you would learn something from it.
What was interesting to me in my searching was tests of actual physical stimulus of humans to anomalies in the earth. Could this be advantageous in metal detecting? I don't know. I know that by observation (not DBT), scientists and others have found that when a tsunami hits, most animals have already fled to higher ground. There is no absolute proof of the science of this, but they are working on it. That to me is as it should be.
Oh, and Champ, I'm sorry, I thought I was done. I was wrong again and openly admit it. What can I say?



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2019 03:32PM by Picketwire.

Picketwire,

One of the problems here, is that empirical science requires -- if a study is to be conducted -- that what you wish to study must be demonstrated conclusively to be repeatable. In other words, the very first step to assessing something, is that you have to be sure you have an actual "signal" to study, and not just "noise." Take the old story of Newton watching an apple fall, and wondering why. BEFORE a reason for an apple falling can be hypothesized, it must FIRST be established that the falling of the apple is actually REAL phenomenon -- by showing it to be a REPEATABLE occurrence.

In the case of dowsing, I have seen nothing whatsoever to demonstrate that it's even REPEATABLE, let ALONE getting to the stage where you begin to try and hypothesize the "why." And THIS IS THE PROBLEM, and it's why I dismiss it -- and why so many others do, as well. Until it can be demonstrated that dowsing/witching/long-range locating is an actual, observable thing, that can be REPEATED in controlled conditions, (so as to establish that first, crucial step in the scientific process), then there is nothing that can be taken any further in terms discussing the scientific reality of it.

When you can't even get past that first stage -- i.e. demonstrate that that what you wish to study is a "real thing" (again -- meaning repeatable, under controlled conditions), then any talk of the "science" behind that which you propose to study, is premature, at BEST, if not simply ridiculous. At this point, the only "study" that can be legitimately done on witching/divining/long-range locating, is still at that very first step -- i.e. attempts to prove the observability and repeatability of it, so as to first establish it as a "real thing." Until that initial proof of the reality of it can be established, it makes NO SENSE to discuss anything beyond that first step...

Steve

I was right in that this is a part of the Munich study but I was wrong in that the information about the success rate in Sri Lanka is in this part. The Munich test link is for Part 2. The success rate in Sri Lanka and Sinai desert are in Part 1.1. In the link provided by Tom in Ca, look on page 172. This seems repeatable to me. Preceding this, he notes that statistics show that most tests show most dowsing results are the result of random chance. However the study cites people who do have repeatable success beyond random chance. Convince me I am wrong. If you have time also, starting on page 175 he lists classic objections. I believe you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
Oh, and please steve, don't YELL at me, I am very sensitive.

Picketwire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All Right! Now I feel we are getting somewhere.
>


And I appreciate your well-thought out inputs.


> " ... I have repeatedly said the results are inconclusive and that settled science is not science...."

" > .... I agree with the statistics demonstrating that this test does not prove that dowsing works...."


Uh, then what are we talking about ? I'm having trouble understanding if you're a disbelieving skeptic, or a believer. On the one hand, the quotes above from you, seem to put a rest to all of this. Ie.: that you also see no merit to it. But then on the other hand .... you seem to believe. Can you clarify this ? If you too are saying it's not proven, and unscientific, then where is the need for either of us to knock ourselves silly studying each other's links ?


> " .... does not use an unbiased assistant to administer the tests..."


Huh ? In the video, correct me if I'm wrong, but it clearly states that neither the dowser participants OR the clipboard person administering the tests, knows where the targets are. In other words, a 3rd party has randomly chosen where to put the hidden targets. Are you saying that "3rd party" is the biased "assistant" that you are referring to ?

If so, how does any "bias", that they may hold, have any bearing on the eventual outcomes of the dowsers ? That person is ushered out of the room, before the tester and testee are brought in. Right ? The dowsers don't know where the targets are. The dude with the clipboard doesn't know. And the 3rd party person has been ushered out of the room before the tests. So that no subtle influences (subconscious eye-gestures, etc.... ) skew results. So what difference does the beliefs/biases , of that 3rd party, who picked certain buckets, have anything to do with anything ? And mind you: To my recollection: The video doesn't tell us the beliefs of that assistant anyhow.

And since when does "bias or belief" effect results of a DBT dowsing test ?? For example: If you took 100 persons off the street , who had a bias against metal detectors, and asked all of them to wave a quarter in front of a detector, I'll bet that it beeps for all 100 of them. Right ? Regardless of their beliefs, biases, skills, training, etc... Right ?

So with that said, do you still conclude that the video is not DBT ?

A much better pushback would have been to say that: "Those particular dowsers were not skilled. Yet others dowsers I've seen can pass that test with flying colors". This is the most common pushback . And ... btw ... is bullet-proof, eh ? And conveniently never-ending. Because no matter HOW many dowsers are brought in, all other dowsers can continue to say: Those particular ones aren't skilled enough. I believe this is what's known as the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

> ".... is similar to a challenge issued by Monte where he has buried a certain number of items ..."


I do not know what "Monte" test you are speaking of. Is it a nail/iron-see-through test ?

But it would most likely be a case of where : No md'r is claiming to have the ability to be able to do it, IN THE FIRST PLACE. Contrast to dowsers, who do indeed claim various abilities, all-the-time. So if you can link me to whatever "Monte" test you're talking about, I'll see if the analogy falls apart.


" >... Munich study is not my test but a cited link. A fair shrift to me would mean reading the thing."

It sounds like you're saying that the skeptic's journal rebutall story *only* rebutted *just* a part of it. And not all of it. So I'll make you a gentlemen's agreement, if I study both articles, top-to-bottom, and then 1) come to the same conclusion that the rebutall didn't fully debunk it, yet 2) yet I personally debunk the remaining parts, then 3) you will come on board acknowledging that this Munich study didn't prove dowsing works and that you agree that dowsing is nonsense. Do we agree ?

But if you already agree that the Munich study is inconclusive, I fail to see what we are disputing ? Can you please clarify, before I progress: Do you think the Munich studies shows that dowsing works ? Because if you agree that it doesn't necessarily come to that conclusion, then ... what are we talking about ?

Otherwise I fear that this is all sort of like the "moving of the goal posts" . That dowsers put forward all the time. They give you book after book to read. And if the skeptic hasn't read them, then the skeptic doesn't have room to talk. Or "unless a skeptic tried dowsing himself, then you are not qualified to talk". Right ? But the devil is in the details: Because even if the skeptic DID read, he would be given *yet another* book or article to read. And even if he DID try dowsing, he would then be told that he didn't try it long enough. Eg.: needs years more practice. See the "moving goal post " phenomenon ? No amount of a skeptic reading, trying, etc... ever satisfies the adherents.


> " .... is the reason anyone has had success dowsing...."


The "success" that you are referring to here, is not any successes in DBT's. In the context of your sentences at this point. Right ? It's talking about the "successes" (aka "finds") by dowsers in the field, that are SUBSEQUENTLY going to subject themselves to DBT testing. Right ? If so, then this is a word-game going on here. It's going to boil down to your definition of "success" and "finds". Because as I've said before, those "finds" and "successes" (that your sentence here alludes to) are all anecdotal finds. We do not know if they can be attributed to other more plausible explanations.

I see this ALL THE TIME, when "successes" and "finds" are pointed out (as the reason for "more tests to confirm", etc...) . And when you study those successes & finds, it turns out it's stuff like a dude pointing his wand at a likely looking ruin or cellar hole or whatever. Then pulls out his detector to "pinpoint" (that's the ticket). Or someone dowsing for water, where ... truth-be-told .... water exists in those regions "wherever leaves fall". Yet in each case, the rod is given the credit for the "success" and "find". Right ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2019 06:48PM by Tom_in_CA.

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Picketwire,
>
> One of the problems here, is that empirical scienc
> e requires -- if a study is to be conducted -- tha
> t what you wish to study must be demonstrated conc
> lusively to be repeatable.

Correct. So as to remove for the possibility that it's not simply chalked up to random eventual odds.

Otherwise it would be like me saying that I can correctly guess a card out of a deck of cards. All I would need to do is guess "queen of spades" every single time. And guess what? Before the 52nd card, I would be 100% accurate, on one of the guesses. But as you can see, this does NOT show that I can correctly guess cards. It only shows eventual random chance odds. You can't toss out the incorrect guesses, and focus only on the correct guesses.

n. A testing procedure, designed to eliminate biased results, in which the identity of those receiving a test treatment is concealed from both administrators and subjects until after the study is completed.
Double blind experiment - Dictionary.com
[www.dictionary.com]
The administrator was there during the testing procedure. I do not believe that made a difference in the results, I just contest that it is a DBT. If you say that only DBTs can prove anything, then animals that flee tsunamis for higher ground as demonstrated by observation is a myth. I know, I am putting words in you mouth but I think you are doing the same to me.
Monte Berry is a metal detectorist of some renown. You may not have heard of him but has a website AHRPS. I am sure if you contact or ask him, he will tell you the rules. He buried different articles, coins, pull tabs, etc. that can be found by metal detectors. His challenge is to correctly identify them all. You put I think $20 on the table and if you can tell the difference between the signals and identify them all correctly, he will reward you with a sum (I don't remember how much) considerably more than the $20 but if you miss one, he keeps the $20. No, it is not a nail see through test.
You posted the link to the Munich test. Go to page 175 (Control-f does a search on my computer) and tell me that nothing is repeatable here.
Because the physics have not been determined completely, I would say that it is inconclusive. I would say that it is conclusive that most who claim to be able to dowse are wrong. I disagree that it has been conclusively proven that it never works. But, as I say, what I believe means nothing.
I believe our differences are that you believe it never works but I am not ready to say that.
I have read the complete rebuttal (5) pages. I have not read all of part one and part 2 of the Munich study. I do know the rebuttal says nothing of the repeatable results of the three people in Germany cited on page 175 of volume 2. It says nothing about the successes searching in Sri Lanka for water.
If you can show me where I make excuses for a dowser's failure, even upon your urging, shame be upon me. I fail to see how I am moving the goal posts by asking for scientific data.
Oh, and thank you for the civil discourse.
Gentleman's agreement: I have read all the rebuttal but only parts of the Munich studies. I still say it only casts shade one part so the ball is in your court to rebut the rest of the study. If you do, I will hand my head in shame, admit that there is an extremely high probability that dowsing has never worked, and apologize for wasting your time reading, I will say that there are studies in both articles that I have cited dealing with tangent issues like physical responses to fault anomolies that are quite interesting and somewhat relevant to metal detecting and like me learn something you did not know before and isn't the the quest for knowledge?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2019 08:38PM by Picketwire.

Picketwire -- it's not yelling, it's just emphasizing.

As I see it, this whole endeavor is fraught with issues.

One very substantial issue is, there's nothing inherently "scientific," whatsoever, about the origins of using a forked stick to "find water" or whatever. There is precisely zero logical reason that anyone would expect that a "forked stick" or whatever would "point toward" water, or any other object. It's not like sticks point toward water "on their own," to where someone might have seen such a phenomenon occur, and start pondering it. Think 500 years ago; why would someone even have THOUGHT that maybe a forked stick would point toward underground objects -- BUT ONLY if the "right" person was holding the stick? What would be the rationale for such a supposition? Why would someone even have thought to ponder that? What would have been the real-life experiences that would have led to the "observation" that if the RIGHT person holds the RIGHT kind of stick, that the stick might "move?" And then, if somehow this DID happen, and a stick DID move, in the hands of some particular person...why would we presume that their conclusion would have been "wow, I was holding a stick, and it moved in my hand; that must mean we should probably start digging for water?" I mean, think about it. If I handed you a stick, and you started walking along, and the stick started moving, what would your response be? Probably, you'd drop the stick immediately, out of fear -- NOT "start digging for water," LOL! What I'm saying is, there is no plausible way that such a phenomenon would be arrived at logically. Since it's not "repeatable," in the sense of it can be observed readily in nature, there's no reason -- prior to the idea coming into existence -- that anyone would even have THOUGHT to make such a connection (unless, a charlatan looking to "fool" people).

Let's consider something similar. Magnetism. Thinking back in time, there would have been a point where no one would have expected that a particular type of metal might have any reason to be "attracted" to another substance. No one would have thought "gee, if I take a pile of magnetite, and place it close to my sword blade, I bet it will stick..." No, instead -- we would presume that most such discoveries happened "by chance." Perhaps someone was using magnetite, and they accidentally dropped an iron nail, and just happened to notice that the magnetite "stuck" to the nail. The first question might then be -- now why did that happen? This is how many discoveries were made. So then, testing would presumably have been done -- "can I make that happen again" (i.e. is it "repeatable")...and if so -- "with what materials can I make it happen?" Etc. Extensive experimentation and testing would then eventually lead you to the conditions, materials, circumstances, etc. through which you could make the observation "repeat." Eventually, then, there would be a search for the REASON that the phenomenon occurs.

Now, let's similarly consider the idea that a forked stick would "point" toward water. Clearly, in the case of a piece of iron, and a pile of magnetite, the "attraction" of the iron to the magnetite happens IRRELEVANT of the observer. You don't have to have some "specially skilled" person to be "touching" the iron, for the attraction to magnetite to occur. The attraction exists within the items themselves, with no special "skill" coming from the observer.

SO -- along those lines, either a stick has an affinity for water, or it doesn't. If I lay a stick down, next to a pond, and it "turns itself" to "point" toward the water, and it happens again and again, I have something there to hypothesize about, and try to figure out. But, if it DOESN'T, then that suggests that it's not the STICK that has the affinity for water, but the person HOLDING the stick. And since the "stick" can be wooden, or metal, or whatever, then it would seem pretty clear that it's not the MATERIAL having an affinity for the water, but it would presumably be the DIVINER HIMSELF. Which, then, suggests that it could be a shoe with peanut butter on it, just as Tom suggested earlier, as the "tool of choice" for the diviner.

Now, could some person have some "sensitivity" toward water? I guess it's possible -- but there is no known scientific explanation for how someone could "sense" the presence of water 100 feet under the ground. Indeed, credit, of course, is always given to the "tool" when speaking of divining. IF it's the tool, the person is not needed. If it's the person, the tool is not needed. If it is some combination, I now have to accept the idea that there are SOME people who can hold several different types of objects in their hands, and then through some combination of some special person, with special abilities, holding an object which in and of itself has no affinity toward the item for which you are searching, through some fortuitous "empowering" of the object, through its connection to that "special person," now starts to show an affinity for water, or metal, or whatever...

Can you see how inherently illogical and unscientific this all is? Would you not expect skepticism from scientifically minded people on the subject?

Steve

Steve, I totally expect skepticism from scientists. The blood of diabetics contains sugar. Person who discovered did so by tasting it. Who in his right mind would have thought it was a good idea to taste urine? Penecillin, teflon, vulcanized rubber, microwaves were all discovered by accident. There was nothing inherently scientific about any of these but they happened. If the reaction of the common man would be to drop the stick, then what convinced people for over 1000 years to continue to use it as a search method? I think it is obvious that sticks and metal rods laying on the ground will not move to find water. None of the tests I have cited state that this is the case. All were connected to a human being. Because something is inherently illogical does not prove it false. I always wondered about why one person seems successful but many fail. The studies I cited reported physical differences between people who were more apt have a higher percentage in finding water. From Dowsing: a review of experimental research:

"In a well described second experiment, Harvalik (1978) reports a study with dowsers detecting low-power high-frequency electromagnetic fields. Fourteen reputed dowsers participated with 694 trials (661 hits, 33 misses). The high-frequency generator was randomly switched on or off; the trials were conducted double blind."

Does this prove it works? No, but anomalies in magnetic fields are a sign of fractures in rock that are required for them to have water in them. Is this the only difference? No, others are mentioned in this particular article.
Here is a short piece of the Munich studies:

"Critical observers repeatedly assert that dowsers generally perform so badly in practical field work that they do not deserve serious attention; moreover, a careful analysis of the activity of "famous" dowsers is claimed to reveal mainly failures, except for a few successes obtained by accident. This assessment, in fact, is probably correct as regards the majority of dowsers; nevertheless, it can be shown that an absolute generalization of these statements is completely erroneous. At all times, there have been dowsers who produced continuous and unusual successes with respect to water detection - and, nevertheless, have been commonly ignored. This fact may be demonstrated by means of three examples related to active water prospectors in Germany whose dowsing activities have been the object of a more thorough analysis. The abundance of available information and results allows description of some of the spectacular and well-documented cases.
E. Kittemann. This lady dowser, active for over decades in the southern part of Germany, has solved most difficult problems referring to water detection; no one has ever heard of any serious failures. Her most spectacular achievement consisted in an unusually precise prediction of a mineral water source in Tegernsee (Germany). By means of the dowsing technique, Kittemann located a drilling point and gave indications of the depth and the mineral composition of the supposed water source; the predictions were totally opposed to what one would have expected from geoscientific knowledge about the area and, therefore, were considered as being extremely improbable. Finally, after difficult and lengthy debates, drilling took place and confirmed all the dowsing predictions in detail, contrary to all expectations.
That particular case, as well as many other unusual performances of Kitte- mann have been reanalyzed and are generally well documented [3]."

If you want to read about the other two, it is on page 172. I can agree with the inherently illogical but not the unscientific part.
Tom, I suggest starting with the Popular Mechanics article which is about the Munich tests but as my old boss told me, "If you are doing the dishes, you can use whatever soap you want."

Picketwire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Steve, I totally expect skepticism from scientists
> . The blood of diabetics contains sugar. Person
> who discovered did so by tasting it. Who in his r
> ight mind would have thought it was a good idea to
> taste urine? Penecillin, teflon, vulcanized rubber
> , microwaves were all discovered by accident. The
> re was nothing inherently scientific about any of
> these but they happened. If the reaction of the c
> ommon man would be to drop the stick, then what co
> nvinced people for over 1000 years to continue to
> use it as a search method? I think it is obvious
> that sticks and metal rods laying on the ground wi
> ll not move to find water. None of the tests I ha
> ve cited state that this is the case. All were co
> nnected to a human being. Because something is in
> herently illogical does not prove it false. I alwa
> ys wondered about why one person seems successful
> but many fail. The studies I cited reported physi
> cal differences between people who were more apt h
> ave a higher percentage in finding water. From Do
> wsing: a review of experimental research:
>
Picketwire -- couple things.

You totally didn't understand what I was saying. You seem to be comparing apples and oranges.

For instance, you said "Penicillin was discovered by accident." I agree -- but how does this refute anything I said? I said that very thing, in my post, when I was discussing magnetism. I said "we would presume that most such discoveries happened 'by chance.'" In other words, MANY MANY things were discovered, by chance/accident. But the POINT is -- the KEY thing is -- what was discovered, by chance, was an "if A, then B" observation, that was both OBVIOUS, and REPEATABLE. I drop an apple from my hand (A), and it falls to the ground (B ). There's an obvious, repeatable pattern there. I get stung by a bee, a red bump forms. There's an obvious, repeatable pattern. If I stick a key in a receptacle, I get zapped. Very, very obvious, and natural that I might conclude that the shock I felt, was CUASED by me sticking the key in the plug. By repeating the "if A, then B" process, and proving that it was NOT a random occurrence, but instead something that could be repeated, under controlled circumstances, THEN you can begin establish with certainty the "if A, then B" paradigm -- and begin the process of hypothesizing WHY A leads to B.

Take your Penicillin example. As I understand it, Penicillin was discovered when bacteria was being studied in a Petri dish, and it was noticed that in an area of the dish where a particular where mold was growing (Penicillin mold), the bacteria was inhibited from growing. There's your "if A, then B" -- i.e. "if mold, then no bacteria." It was obvious, that no bacteria grew where the mold was. So, you would then try to figure out if that observation was random, or "an accident." Obviously, you'd do this by PURPOSELY putting the same mold in proximity to the same bacteria, again, and seeing if the bacteria avoids growing near the mold. If yes, then you do it again. And again. And again. You then vary things, change variables, and repeat, until you are SURE that you have established CAUSALITY. In other words, you must determine, and prove, that the MOLD is the CAUSE of the lack of growth of bacteria. THEN, and ONLY then, can you begin to try and understand the "why." FIRST, though, you have to establish that it appears that a possible "if A, then B" relationship may exist, and then you need to test the situation thoroughly, to make sure the "if A, then B" relationship really exists (by being REPEATABLE).

As I said (and as you also stated, apparently thinking you were providing some counterpoint to something I said), MANY discoveries happened "by chance." But AFTER that "chance" occurrence happens, comes the KEY -- the occurrence must have obvious enough to establish what the "A" and the "B" were, i.e. the if/then relationship, and then that relationship must be TESTED, THOROUGHLY, for REPEATABILITY. IF that repeatability under controlled conditions was observed, you could then begin to conclude that what you observed "by chance" was not a RANDOM occurrence, but there was CAUSALITY -- the one thing CAUSED the other to happen.

So, let's now try and relate this to dowsing. What is the simple, obvious "if A, then B" relationship? You are holding a stick, and it "turns" in some direction. That's the effect. What's the cause? Think about the first time this EVER happened. Imagine someone, who just HAPPENED to have (unbeknownst to them) this special "divining ability," just HAPPENED to be walking along enjoying their day, holding onto a forked stick. Why they would be doing this? Who knows. It's not like people just walk along, holding forked sticks. But, leaving the extreme improbability of that aside, let's just say that very situation did occur. This SPECIAL person, with SPECIAL ability, just happened to be taking a stroll one day, carrying a forked stick in front of them. Suddenly, the stick began to turn. So, we have an effect. What's the cause? Why assume it was the water in the stream, 50 feet away? Why not the rock next to the path? The pine tree? The eagle sitting in the pine tree? The wind? The sun angle? The full moon? A ghost, pulling on the stick? Why would you even ASSUME it to be water, as being your "cause?" All you know is, your stick started turning in a certain direction... Obviously, the logical next step would be that you might want to test the stick, to see what things might cause the stick to point in some direction. However, you already said in an earlier post that "sticks obviously don't turn by themselves." I agree! So, let's skip on past all the stick testing, to the conclusion -- sticks don't point to ANYTHING, by themselves. So -- that means that it is ONLY something that happens when said stick is held by some "special" person. Well, you have now introduced an extremely difficult "variable" into the equation. And nearly every time someone who claims to be that "special" person, is tested scientifically, the results show that there IS NO repeatability. It's randomness...no skill.

You say "yes, but...there were these few cases..."

Obviously, I'm skeptical. I wasn't there, to see those "few special cases." But -- let's just say for the sake of argument that I believe this...I DON'T...but let's just assume I do, for the moment. I accept for the sake of argument that there are those "few special people." What then, is most logical to conclude? To me, I would conclude that it has nothing to do with the stick, but apparently (assuming I believe that these cases were shown/proven to be valid) there are some folks who can sense some things, that most others can't. It's not seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching. It is something BEYOND the normal senses. It is Extra-Sensory. Extra-Sensory Perception. ESP. Are we good with that? IF such skill exists, and can be shown to exist, can we just call it ESP -- essentially, a form of "psychic ability?" At least, if we can agree to conclude that, we should be able to agree that, for the vast majority of us reading this thread, who don't possess any such "special" ability, divining rods (or long-range locators) can't find us coins, or gold rings, right? Maybe psychic ability can, for those who may have it, but these other tools cannot. Can we agree?

Steve



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/2019 01:33PM by steveg.

Picketwire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n. A testing procedure,

Steve & picketwire, I am overwhelmed by reading the excellent inputs on each your's parts. I can totally "pick apart" what Steve has written. Even from the dowser's perspective . Because I already anticipate the push-backs. Yet I am glad that he's forming thoughts/angles that I'd never considered before . Yet as I say, I can already see-the-pushbacks. Whether or not they "hold water" , and have equal pushbacks from Steve, I dunno. Yet just saying: I "cringe" when I read some of Steve's attempts.

And am overwhelmed by picketwire's pushbacks to me. Seeing/analyzing pushbacks against my own prior points.

So although I can't answer all of what each of you have written right now, I'm going to take a cursory stab at some of picket-wire's points. I'm running out the door now, and will try to address more later.

So to start with Picket-wire:

> " .... I just contest that it is a DBT..... "

"n. A testing procedure, designed to eliminate biased results, in which the identity of those receiving a test treatment is concealed from both administrators and subjects until after the study is completed.
Double blind experiment - Dictionary.com "

Excellent job picket-wire. As much as I try to wriggle out of that semantics on the definition of DBT, I can't. It seems that the dude with the clipboard *knew* that the dude waving the rod , had the "identity" of a being a "believer". Thus nullifying the test from being defined as a DBT. Did I understand this correctly ?

But ... how does one proceed ? Like in the case of the video link I shared: When the dowsers file in to be tested, *SOMEONE* has to tell them the objective . Eg.: " ... here's the buckets, some have water & some have sand, can you or can-you-not identify those-with-water, here's the statistical rules, etc..." . But the MOMENT that anyone rehearses those protocols to the testees, is the moment that someone else can claim that an identity-of-bias-was-known. Ie.: you know who's-testing-whom. How can we ever solve this to get to a cotton-picking-test ?



"Monte Berry is a metal detectorist of some renown."

Ah, now I know the "Monte" you are talking about. I have spoken to him on the phone several times. And hunt in CA with some former PNW friends of his. But not met him directly. And the tests that you allude to, must be a test of TID's (eg.: tabs vs gold rings vs foil, etc...) . Right ? If so, then this only adds merit to what us skeptics are saying: That a claim that someone makes, is foiled by a test. So I'm not following your attempted analogy here.


RE: moving goal posts" hinderance :

You challenge me to look at page 175 of the Munich DBT tests. Because pg. 175 was NOT refuted by the Scientific Journal article link. Right ?

However, as an example of moving goal posts, you've also said:

> ".... If you say that only DBTs can prove anything, then animals that flee tsunamis for higher ground as demonstrated by observation is a myth."

Which indicates to the casual reader that: DBT's can't conclusively prove things. Right ?

See the moving goal posts already inherent ? EVEN IF I answer to pg. 175, you can merely resort back to the above quote. To say that: DBT's *don't really* show/conclude anything. Yet you want me to knock myself silly answering the pg. 175 ? Why ? So that you can just retreat to how DBT 's don't show anything anyhow ?

Ok, will try to dissect point-by-point more in the days to come. Excellent discussion fellows!