Water Divining

[naomi24]

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

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

Your thoughts?

[naomi24]

Jim, //Carl Sagan was specifically referring to the times when there was little or no research to speak of. //

Was he? I didn't know that. How odd he didn't make that clear. Do you have a link to the rest of what he said?

[jim360]

"Appeal to ignorance — the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g. There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist — and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Ch. 12 : The Fine Art of Baloney Detection, p. 221

I don't have a copy of the book for myself, and will have to see if I can't read it at some point. I'd also recommend that you read Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science".

Good night.

[jim360]

Should just add that it's possible very easily to show that in the right circumstances absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Specifically:

-- You must have searched carefully for the evidence and not found it.
-- You would expect to have found some evidence for what you are looking for.

Up to these two conditions, Bayes' theorem tell us that as the probability that there is evidence decreases, then the probability that the effect is absent increases.

[Svejk]

The 'scientists' obviously don't waste time on the social graces. Every time,yet,another ABer relates their experience of divining it seems to make the 'scientists' angrier and, frankly, ruder.
Personally, I just related my experience to Naomi as she expressed an interest. It matters not a jot whether others choose to believe me, or not.
It would appear that several people on here 'got lucky' several times or subconsciously used their, hitherto unknown, expertise in geology to locate water.
Unlikely explanations, imo.
You could always leave us simpletons to our delusions.
Just a thought.

[naomi24]

Jim, //Bear in mind that you have to interpret Carl Sagan's quote carefully……//

Why must I interpret it? He said what he said. The English is plain enough.

//Carl Sagan was specifically referring to the times when there was little or no research to speak of.//

If that statement is true, where is the evidence I asked you for? You can’t be speculating, surely? You tell me scientists don’t do that.

//"Appeal to ignorance — the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa//

How very ignorant that is - but it serves my purpose well in that it illustrates the extreme limitations of your perceptions. For you, there are no half measures – but coming from someone whose inclination to challenge the conclusions of science is non-existent (except in the case of religion) such an insult is unsurprising. Not for the first time am I forming the impression I’m wasting my time talking to you. It’s like talking to a fundamentalist who clings doggedly to his religion. That’s what the book says, so it must be true. In your world if scientists say ‘no’, there is no room for further curiosity – no room for further consideration – and certainly no question that they might be wrong. It’s simply a case of they must be right - and everyone else, regardless of their personal experience, and the absence of yours, is most definitely wrong. A narrow view indeed. Whilst I don’t believe that anything is ‘supernatural’ or ‘paranormal’, I have no doubt whatsoever that there are things happening in this world that are, as yet, beyond scientific explanation – but I’m not a scientist – and thank Zeus for that! I would never want my mind to become as limited in its ability to question as yours clearly is. The thought of that scares the hell out of me.

[jim360]

If Carl Sagan said what you continue to think he said, then he is wrong, as I can lay out for you mathematically in a few lines. Or just go and look at any book about the laws of probability and logic.

As for the evidence, I had thought I had given it to you. If this was not enough for you I can go out and find some more, but rest assured I am not speculating -- again, because of the simple mathematics that I referred to. In the meantime, again I recommend that you read Ben Goldacre's Bad Science. Perhaps you might find his arguments more persuasive.

It's a shame that you feel you are wasting your time talking to me, but then what do you expect on a matter of science? It has been my life, and I know it far better than most people do -- or, at least, I am confident of my abilities in it. They have already passed a university test with flying colours -- and, no matter how good your education was, you shouldn't be surprised when I rate my knowledge of the subject higher than yours. It certainly ought to be, at least, no? To illustrate the reverse, which of us has studied the Bible and Koran harder? You, without a shadow of a doubt. So -- how many times did you "listen to me" in arguments about that? Probably very few times, and rightly so.

On the other hand, when it has come to our religious discussions, I've found time and again that some of the positions I held and thought to be sound you have been able to shoot down and dismantle with ease. So when I was sat on the fence and holding some notion that God and Science might both exist, yes it was ridiculous, and it took your arguments (and other people's) to finally point this out to me. I haven't denied that I held this position, and have mentioned it several times -- and said why (because I didn't want to say to myself that those who did believe in God that I loved were being irrational). It's called cognitive dissonance, a typical human mistake, and I can make it as much as the next man can.

The dual points then are that firstly I do listen to you: even though it might not be immediately, I do think later about what you say. And secondly, that as I point out that all humans are subject to flaws and biases etc., making them unreliable, I mean me as well. I never denied that.

Not for the first time, I get the impression that you aren't listening to me, either. Suffice it to say that the burden of proof -- of dowsing, and anything else that for now fits into the paranormal -- is on anyone who believes that dowsing is a real phenomenon to show that it is real. They have a heck of a lot of work to do, though.

* * * * * * * *

I thought overnight of a simple experiment you and others might like to try (and maybe even myself if I can get a chance). Take two metal wires and suspend them over an empty bath, ensuring that they are completely still. but free to move, and about a foot apart. Then turn the tap on and see if the wires move to cross each other or not. Don't touch them yourself, and do this several times for various separations and lengths of wire, and heights above the water. You may also like to try putting a clear plastic sheeting between the bathwater and the wires (to simulate the earth between). Since the argument of dowsers is that the wires are crossing independently of the movements of the person who is holding them, then you shouldn't need to hold the wires at all. A null result (the wires not crossing) should strongly support the idea that the wires are moving because the human holding them is subconsciously moving the wires. Equally, if the wires cross almost every time, then something weird is going on. Either way, the results should be revealing. Yes, I might try this myself.

[Old_Geezer]

Wow; is there somewhere, where the idea that God and Science might both exist is disproved ? Can someone point that one out to me please ?

[Svejk]

Morning naomi. Hope you have a go with the rods today and hope you find it works.
Its only common sense, which I'm sure you have in abundance,but rather than digging holes in the garden, take a few steps back & a few to the left or right, walk forward & mark again. In this manner you'll be marking out the course of the pipe etc. & should eventually come to a stopcock, manhole or similar. Good luck.

[Old_Geezer]

"Then turn the tap on and see if the wires move to cross each other or not. Don't touch them yourself. ..... Since the argument of dowsers is that the wires are crossing independently of the movements of the person who is holding them, then you shouldn't need to hold the wires at all."

Hmmm shows how much I know. I didn't realise dowsers made that claim. It seems obvious to me that if this works then it would have to be the individual holding them that somehow subconsciously detects the near presence of water, resulting in involuntary movements which happen to move the 'detectors'. Maybe related to the detection of magnetic fields that are thought to allow birds to migrate ?

[naomi24]

Jim, I always listen to you – and there’s no doubt that you are more qualified in the sciences than I – but now it seems Carl Sagan, whom I suspect was rather more qualified than you – is wrong too.

Your proposed experiment is flawed from the outset. Plastic is not earth – and neither is a bath. If you don’t replicate the actions of those who claim this works – and experiment in the same conditions – your experiment is not valid. You should know that.

[Svejk]

What a strange thing to say, jim.
If we're not manipulating the 'wires' then they should move independently over a bath.
I'd imagine it has something to do electric charges/magnetic forces so how could it work without the conductor/conduit. Ie.me.
There must be thousands of similar phenomena that only work with a conduit.

[naomi24]

Svejk, morning. I doubt I'll get time to have a go today - my husband is out, so won't be able to cut up a coat-hanger for me. Hopefully tomorrow.

OG, //Maybe related to the detection of magnetic fields that are thought to allow birds to migrate ? //

Did you read this link I posted?

http://www.ltu.se/cms_fs/1.5014!/dowsing.pdf

[jim360]

Carl Sagan wasn't wrong, I just think that you are misinterpreting him for the reasons laid out above. I'm glad that you listen to me, and I think we can both accept that listening to each other doesn't mean agreeing with them. I didn't fit it into my last post, but I owe you a lot for exposing some of the flaws in my reasoning in many other topics, so thank you. And please save that line for any future debates.

I think I said that in my experiment the results should be revealing. This might be going a bit too far. Certainly they won't be conclusive. You're right about the differences. Problem is, though, that exactly replicating the actions of dowsers wouldn't be controlled -- too many factors to account for. So I think that removing all but the water and the wires would be a good starting point for an investigation into this.

The plastic was an afterthought. If you had the time and inclination you might want to repeat the experiment by burying a tub of water under some earth and then using the dangling wires without you touching them. If they don't cross again, then at the very least we can say that any connection is between the water and the dowser.

[Hypognosis]

According to this,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge

to be admitted for testing, you need a publically available video demonstration of your special ability OR a supporting letter from an academic institution OR newspaper cuttings. You also have to agree to JREF's experimental design and various other (unspecified) conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge#Example_of_a_test_.28dowsing.29

Interesting to note that the test subjects weren't expected to simply find the active pipe once. They had to find it up to thirty times and set out marker pegs to trace its path, across a 30x30 metre patch.

It's completely unlike how I imagine dowsers do what they normally do but, you have to admit that is a rigourous test of accuracy. 30 hits is a sample size large enough to support statistical analysis.

[Old_Geezer]

To be honest Naomi, no. Just wandered into this thread this morning and have effectively just scanned the posts on this page. It's not an issue I have strong views on, but I'll take a look at the link.

[jim360]

Thanks for that link Naomi, and I'll have a look at it. Odd, though, that it seems not to cite any of the experiments that I've described where dowsing was tested and found not to work. Actually, it's not odd, because some scientists tend to do that!

[naomi24]

Jim, no one has said that they’ve done this without holding the wires – sometimes, but not always, in straws. You cannot conduct an experiment in different circumstances and using different materials. That is simply not valid from the outset. Sheesh! And you’re the scientist!

How can I be misinterpreting Carl Sagan? What he said clearly doesn’t fit your world view, but nonetheless he said it. First he’s wrong – now he’s not – but I don’t understand plain English.

Hypognosis, //You also have to agree to JREF's experimental design and various other (unspecified) conditions.//

That’s the rub, isn’t it. Bit like Jim’s proposed experiment.

[jim360]

I said earlier "if Carl Sagan said what you think he said, then he is wrong." Again I refer you to the mathematics of this. Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence if you have looked hard enough for that evidence. That is a demonstrable mathematical fact, and I think it's safe to say that Carl Sagan knew this. What he was talking about was the fallacy of supporting a position because there is no (compelling) evidence against it.

In point of fact about experiments, no experiment ever perfectly replicates the conditions it's designed to test. The argument goes that often the differences are small enough to be ignored, or at least the differences can be accounted for. At the moment I don't know if this is true for the experiment I am proposing, and so I will have to give it some more thought.

[jim360]

To address your criticism more carefully, I think you would need to have the following program of experimental research:

-- Is there any connection between the rods and the water (ideally when the water is flowing)?
-- Is there any connection between the human dowser and the water?
-- Does this connection strengthen or weaken when there is material between the water and the dowser?
-- Is there any connection between the success of dowsing and environmental indicators that might show where the water is?

And probably a few others that I haven't thought of. No realistic experiment can jump to the end (a dowser working in his normal conditions) and expect to reach any major conclusions, because even taking 2sp's husband's work, and svejk's and others' claims, at face value you would still have no idea why it works. Others and I have proposed several reasons why it would appear to work that fit into current science quite naturally, and an experiment -- more properly, a series of experiments -- needs to confirm or reject my interpretation.

Thus, we first test if the rods (and then the human dowser) are influenced by the presence of water. Soil can be simulated roughly by certain plastics because they have similar electrical properties. Not the same, but similar. Alternatively the soil might be removed altogether, because on the face of it if dowsing finds water then it ought to find water when there is nothing else to interfere with it. This is what my first experiment would be designed to test -- and no, I've not finished designing it yet.

Further experiments should test other aspects, such as trying to perform a similar test for the human -- does he respond to water in any way? This would be harder to test in a fair way. But ultimately each experiment should be designed to test only one, or possibly two, things about the effect at once.

Most of the experiments I and others have mentioned earlier seem to test the final question I asked -- that is, the success of dowsing dependent on possible clues as to where the water might be. This is achieved by burying pipes underground in known locations, and then sending water through some of them at a time. Which pipes are filled with water is unknown both to the dowser and to the experimenter, at least until afterwards. Otherwise the conditions are effectively the same. Or, at least, the dowsers thought so, as it was reported that they expected 100% success. In these experiments we find that dowsing leads to finding the water no more often than you would expect through random chance. Again, one possible factor has been isolated and then tested.