Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Water Divining
266 Answers
I’ve just been listening to ‘The Bottom Line’ on Radio 4 where the guests were the vice president of CH2M Hill, the CEO of Veolia Water, and the CEO of Anglian Water, who all said that water diviners are used within their respective industries. One said if he hadn’t seen it with his own eyes, he would never have believed it works. Listen to the last few minutes of the programme from about 27.14.
http://
Your thoughts?
http://
Your thoughts?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
A belated reply to naomi's message to me on 22/7:
As I have said before, a sentiment you're probably bored with by now, anecdotes are valueless because they describe things which have already happened, which means that we have no chance to check on all those factors which need to be analysed before coming to a decision.
That is why people ('science' if you like) set up trials where every single thing is known and noted. And such trials always show that dowsing doesn't work.
So I think the onus is on the believers. They presumably think that there must be some sort of radiation or unseen connection between the underground water and the brain of the dowser or with the rods themselves. So what are they doing to find this radiation or whatever? What sort do they think it is? How are they planning to detect and measure it?
It's no use saying "That's science's job." Science has done its bit in a highly methodical way. It can do no more and no longer needs to, since there is nothing left to investigate. So, I repeat, what are the believers doing?
naomi, I must catch up and see how your own experiment went. I hope you kept very strict records of every detail. Cheers.
As I have said before, a sentiment you're probably bored with by now, anecdotes are valueless because they describe things which have already happened, which means that we have no chance to check on all those factors which need to be analysed before coming to a decision.
That is why people ('science' if you like) set up trials where every single thing is known and noted. And such trials always show that dowsing doesn't work.
So I think the onus is on the believers. They presumably think that there must be some sort of radiation or unseen connection between the underground water and the brain of the dowser or with the rods themselves. So what are they doing to find this radiation or whatever? What sort do they think it is? How are they planning to detect and measure it?
It's no use saying "That's science's job." Science has done its bit in a highly methodical way. It can do no more and no longer needs to, since there is nothing left to investigate. So, I repeat, what are the believers doing?
naomi, I must catch up and see how your own experiment went. I hope you kept very strict records of every detail. Cheers.
Mr P has a ditching and drainage contracting company (on the side of farming!), and he water divines, or uses the wires as we call it.
I can promise that is actually works. Mr P is not a man for fairytales or notions of alternative therapies, but he can find underground water, tell you how deep it is and in what direction it is running.
I've seen it with my own eyes, and it comes in very handy when he is putting in drains.
He thinks anyone can do it, it just takes practice.
I can promise that is actually works. Mr P is not a man for fairytales or notions of alternative therapies, but he can find underground water, tell you how deep it is and in what direction it is running.
I've seen it with my own eyes, and it comes in very handy when he is putting in drains.
He thinks anyone can do it, it just takes practice.
naomi, how else can you explain Mr P's success at finding water underground?
When he first took over the business, the old owner worked with him for a few months during the transition stages. The old owner used to dig test holes to find the water and this practice continued for a few months, with Mr P using the wires before each job to pinpoint where he thought the water would be. He had a 100% success rate, confirmed by the test holes they subsequently dug. Now he doesn't bother with test holes - unless the client insists and pays extra for them!
Neither of us understands how it works, but both believe it does. I'm trying to get him to look for gold next!
When he first took over the business, the old owner worked with him for a few months during the transition stages. The old owner used to dig test holes to find the water and this practice continued for a few months, with Mr P using the wires before each job to pinpoint where he thought the water would be. He had a 100% success rate, confirmed by the test holes they subsequently dug. Now he doesn't bother with test holes - unless the client insists and pays extra for them!
Neither of us understands how it works, but both believe it does. I'm trying to get him to look for gold next!
Why do you not doubt 2sp (and others) but do doubt those scientists who have bothered to look into this over the decades and consistently drawn a blank? It's not like they were trying to show that it didn't work, after all. Would it be fair to say that you prefer human testimonies to scientific ones?
All dowsers seem to claim a 100% success rate. It's a pity that the disappears as soon as their claims are put to a proper test. 2sp's husband's claims are nothing new.
All dowsers seem to claim a 100% success rate. It's a pity that the disappears as soon as their claims are put to a proper test. 2sp's husband's claims are nothing new.
I can accept all that up to the point where the wires play any part other than, perhaps, confirming what your brain is telling you -- the ideomotor effect. Among other things, a proper test would have to eliminate that idea, and would also have to remove all possible environmental clues as to where the water is, or where it is heading. Until you or your husband do(es) that then it can't really be called a proper test.
Gness - I'd loog at the Geology
I live in a small village that is across a small valley
All the really old houses like mine are half way up the valley side or at the bottom - all the houses between them are modern.
The area is chalk but there's a layer of clay that comes out at that level - rain that goes into the chalk is forced to the surface where the clay comes out.
Indeed our house has a small spring in the cellar.
The people building the houses weren't daft, they built the houses where the water came to the surface - they didn't build then where they would have to trudge up or down the hill every time they wanted water.
I very much doubt any hazel twigs were involved! they knew where the water was available from knowing how the land behaved during heavy rainfall
I live in a small village that is across a small valley
All the really old houses like mine are half way up the valley side or at the bottom - all the houses between them are modern.
The area is chalk but there's a layer of clay that comes out at that level - rain that goes into the chalk is forced to the surface where the clay comes out.
Indeed our house has a small spring in the cellar.
The people building the houses weren't daft, they built the houses where the water came to the surface - they didn't build then where they would have to trudge up or down the hill every time they wanted water.
I very much doubt any hazel twigs were involved! they knew where the water was available from knowing how the land behaved during heavy rainfall
Then I shall take my tame geologist to look at the land to see if she can explain it to me....I know our house was on rocky and peaty land we trudged for water til we put the pipe in up the hill....then employed Mr Dowser to find our own water...And in the meantime I shall experiment with twigs..:-)x
Jim...if you don't know how to find water I have the name of a good dowser and I can teach you to find your glasses with a pendulum..;-0 x
Jim...if you don't know how to find water I have the name of a good dowser and I can teach you to find your glasses with a pendulum..;-0 x
Jim, //Why do you not doubt 2sp (and others) but do doubt those scientists who have bothered to look into this over the decades and consistently drawn a blank?//
Because I do not automatically consider people to be liars, frauds, deluded, potty, or imagining things – and I’m well aware that scientists don’t know everything. I'm with Carl Sagan. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence'.
Because I do not automatically consider people to be liars, frauds, deluded, potty, or imagining things – and I’m well aware that scientists don’t know everything. I'm with Carl Sagan. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence'.
Well, thanks at least for getting back to me. But I am still confused. Scientists are people too. And therefore presumably should not be assumed to be lying, fraudulent, deluded, potty, or imagining things when they make their own careful observations. So again, why is their evidence less worth considering than the man in the street's?
Moreover, I and others must have mentioned cognitive bias, conformation bias, cognitive dissonance, misunderstanding of statistics, ideomotor etc., etc. several times. All of which are known effects that inhibit the reliability of eyewitness evidence. And again I must point out that I have never said that people who claim dowsing are liars, frauds, deluded, potty, or imagining things. Merely that they are most likely mistaken because their accounts are subject to the above biases -- something that is more likely given that these accounts contradict more careful measurements taken by people whose job it is to try and avoid making these mistakes!
Science doesn't know everything. I know that already. So does Science. Because if it did know everything there'd be no point in doing it.
I think the conclusion we can reach from those experiments into dowsing is that as soon as you remove obvious indicators for where the water is, the effect seems to disappear. This makes it highly likely, if not almost certain, that a dowser is reading the environment and transferring that information (subconsciously) into the wires the dowser is holding.
Bear in mind that you have to interpret Carl Sagan's quote carefully: Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence if you have spent enough time and care looking for that evidence. Carl Sagan was specifically referring to the times when there was little or no research to speak of. There is plenty in the case of dowsing.
Moreover, I and others must have mentioned cognitive bias, conformation bias, cognitive dissonance, misunderstanding of statistics, ideomotor etc., etc. several times. All of which are known effects that inhibit the reliability of eyewitness evidence. And again I must point out that I have never said that people who claim dowsing are liars, frauds, deluded, potty, or imagining things. Merely that they are most likely mistaken because their accounts are subject to the above biases -- something that is more likely given that these accounts contradict more careful measurements taken by people whose job it is to try and avoid making these mistakes!
Science doesn't know everything. I know that already. So does Science. Because if it did know everything there'd be no point in doing it.
I think the conclusion we can reach from those experiments into dowsing is that as soon as you remove obvious indicators for where the water is, the effect seems to disappear. This makes it highly likely, if not almost certain, that a dowser is reading the environment and transferring that information (subconsciously) into the wires the dowser is holding.
Bear in mind that you have to interpret Carl Sagan's quote carefully: Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence if you have spent enough time and care looking for that evidence. Carl Sagan was specifically referring to the times when there was little or no research to speak of. There is plenty in the case of dowsing.
