Lizzies Quizzes C/D 25/01 Rhyming...
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min 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.
If these men thought it worked every time, their companies wouldn’t use other methods – but most of the time they do, so clearly it is far from infallible. Having said that, it’s easy to dismiss it as self-deception, etc, etc, but since so many people claim to have seen it working, I don’t think their accounts should be rejected completely simply because the tests set (which may not be capable of providing answers) have proven unsuccessful. I know science wants hard evidence – and rightly so – but considering the huge amount of anecdotal evidence (which I know is unacceptable to science) I think it’s rather short-sighted to reject it completely. At the very least it should be put in the ‘matters pending’ tray. It might be down to chance – but I’d like to know why it works at all. The link I posted could provide some clues that are worthy of more in depth investigation – but no one seems to have taken the suggestions any further.
That’s what I’d like science to do with all of these ‘airy-fairy’ things that so many people report …. put them in the ‘matters pending’ tray. It seems to me that once it’s decided that there’s no evidence, they are forgotten and never re-examined.
That’s what I’d like science to do with all of these ‘airy-fairy’ things that so many people report …. put them in the ‘matters pending’ tray. It seems to me that once it’s decided that there’s no evidence, they are forgotten and never re-examined.
@Naomi - It boils down to a balance of probabilities issue, Naomi, at least for me.
Those who claim that paranormal activities - divining, ghosts, seances, ESP - all do so from anecdotal evidence or personal recollection. They may be confident of their dowsing abilities, because of confirmation bias - they forget all the times they were wrong and only remember the times they were right. This is just human nature. Think of that other old chestnut - "i was just thinking about you, and then you rang me - spooky!".
Nor can they claim special protection - the observer effect, or some sort of "quantum uncertainty" - when being tested; Their own claims make real world claims - diviners say they can find water, or a particular type of mineral, or in one recent and particularly murderous deception, bombs and explosives. And to me thats the especially tragic thing. If you believe in water dowsing, you would also probably believe in dowsing for explosives.
All these phenomena have had years, decades -centuries even -of anecdotal or eye-witness or personal accounts as evidence, yet not a one of them can demonstrate this phenomenon they claim is genuine above random chance under controlled conditions.
Can such phenomena offer a credible or plausible testable mechanism? Is it consistent with the laws of nature? Can they replicate their success under controlled conditions? Can their method be passed on to others? For those who claim ESP or paranormal abilities, can they show structures within the body or brain that are involved in the transmission or reception of these signals?
So we are really only left with 2 conclusions. The first is that these effects are not down to some mysterious ability, but are, in the case of dowsing say,a side effect of subconscious observation,a basic common sense understanding of water and the ideomotor reflex.An educated guess, guided by subconscious cues, actioned by a nervous/muscular twitch.
The second is that the phenomenon is genuine - but then a whole new science, a paradigm shift in scientific understanding would be needed, one that rejects and replaces much of our current understanding. Might happen I suppose, but the probability is extremely low.And the onus is on those claiming these abilities, because in the absence of any credible mechanism consistent with the laws of nature, it is an extra-ordinary claim which requires extra-ordinary evidence to support it.This probability is assigned a value close to zero, but acknowledges that new evidence might emerge to support the claim.
As to why CEOs and organisations will use diviners - no idea. Superstition maybe, and since it is cheap can therefore be tolerated, plus they will occasionally be right. But the fact that CEOs might tolerate such issues does not provide proof of concept - just anecdote or personal observation...
Those who claim that paranormal activities - divining, ghosts, seances, ESP - all do so from anecdotal evidence or personal recollection. They may be confident of their dowsing abilities, because of confirmation bias - they forget all the times they were wrong and only remember the times they were right. This is just human nature. Think of that other old chestnut - "i was just thinking about you, and then you rang me - spooky!".
Nor can they claim special protection - the observer effect, or some sort of "quantum uncertainty" - when being tested; Their own claims make real world claims - diviners say they can find water, or a particular type of mineral, or in one recent and particularly murderous deception, bombs and explosives. And to me thats the especially tragic thing. If you believe in water dowsing, you would also probably believe in dowsing for explosives.
All these phenomena have had years, decades -centuries even -of anecdotal or eye-witness or personal accounts as evidence, yet not a one of them can demonstrate this phenomenon they claim is genuine above random chance under controlled conditions.
Can such phenomena offer a credible or plausible testable mechanism? Is it consistent with the laws of nature? Can they replicate their success under controlled conditions? Can their method be passed on to others? For those who claim ESP or paranormal abilities, can they show structures within the body or brain that are involved in the transmission or reception of these signals?
So we are really only left with 2 conclusions. The first is that these effects are not down to some mysterious ability, but are, in the case of dowsing say,a side effect of subconscious observation,a basic common sense understanding of water and the ideomotor reflex.An educated guess, guided by subconscious cues, actioned by a nervous/muscular twitch.
The second is that the phenomenon is genuine - but then a whole new science, a paradigm shift in scientific understanding would be needed, one that rejects and replaces much of our current understanding. Might happen I suppose, but the probability is extremely low.And the onus is on those claiming these abilities, because in the absence of any credible mechanism consistent with the laws of nature, it is an extra-ordinary claim which requires extra-ordinary evidence to support it.This probability is assigned a value close to zero, but acknowledges that new evidence might emerge to support the claim.
As to why CEOs and organisations will use diviners - no idea. Superstition maybe, and since it is cheap can therefore be tolerated, plus they will occasionally be right. But the fact that CEOs might tolerate such issues does not provide proof of concept - just anecdote or personal observation...
LG, I know all of that, but nevertheless because of the amount of anecdotal evidence, I remain curious. Perhaps AnswerBankers should conduct (no pun intended) their own little experiment as Svejk suggests.
//I implore the nay-sayers on here to take a metal coat-hanger, cut it and shape it so you have 2 L shaped 'rods' 300/100. Form 2 loose fists and balance the rods in them.. Now walk, holding them out in front of you, about 300 apart and you, hopefully, will be amazed at the 'violent' crossing of the wires. Mark the spot and approach from different angles and you will find they cross at exactly the same spot again and again.//
Jim’s already, quite disappointingly, said he won’t do it – but would anyone else be willing to have a go? It’s a bit of fun if nothing else.
//I implore the nay-sayers on here to take a metal coat-hanger, cut it and shape it so you have 2 L shaped 'rods' 300/100. Form 2 loose fists and balance the rods in them.. Now walk, holding them out in front of you, about 300 apart and you, hopefully, will be amazed at the 'violent' crossing of the wires. Mark the spot and approach from different angles and you will find they cross at exactly the same spot again and again.//
Jim’s already, quite disappointingly, said he won’t do it – but would anyone else be willing to have a go? It’s a bit of fun if nothing else.
Good idea, Naomi.
Seems strange that scientifically minded people will spend hours discrediting something they can test for themselves in a matter of minutes.
This phenomena being linked to: Alien Abduction. Leprechauns. Fairies etc. Doesn't bode well for the state of science today.
Sounds more like the reasoning the Spanish Inquisition used to debunk scientific advances.
Seems strange that scientifically minded people will spend hours discrediting something they can test for themselves in a matter of minutes.
This phenomena being linked to: Alien Abduction. Leprechauns. Fairies etc. Doesn't bode well for the state of science today.
Sounds more like the reasoning the Spanish Inquisition used to debunk scientific advances.
What I said, specifically, was that I wouldn't be prepared to travel all the way to a stranger's house unless I had some idea of the controlled experiment I would conduct. As to doing it for myself... not sure when I will have the opportunity. If I grab two sticks or a bent piece of metal and start walking around anywhere near where I am, I know where most of the water pipes are roughly, so it would be a faulty experiment. And it's not like I'd have permission to dig the road up.
So it's more a case of, "I won't go out of my way to create an opportunity."
So it's more a case of, "I won't go out of my way to create an opportunity."
By the way, svejk, that "doesn't bode well for the state of science today" is just utter tripe. In the same time that investigating aliens on earth, or dowsing, or anything else that falls in the realm of "paranormal", or "psi phenomena", has given the world precisely nothing, the "state of Science today" has moved approximately 100 million times further down in understanding the small, and a similar order of magnitude further up in understanding the large. The state of science today is incredibly healthy.
Finally -- I think Naomi you're right to say that ideas from personal anecdotes are worth putting in the "matters pending" tray. I suppose my point is that this has already happened several times, and I'm not sure that anything will be gained from doing so again.
Finally -- I think Naomi you're right to say that ideas from personal anecdotes are worth putting in the "matters pending" tray. I suppose my point is that this has already happened several times, and I'm not sure that anything will be gained from doing so again.
// it's more a case of, "I won't go out of my way to create an opportunity.//
Jim, What's that? An opportunity to see that it works? Oops! That could be nasty. ;o)
Actually, knowing where the pipes under the pavements could help. If the sticks move, at least you'd know that there was water there without having to dig the pavements up.
Jim, What's that? An opportunity to see that it works? Oops! That could be nasty. ;o)
Actually, knowing where the pipes under the pavements could help. If the sticks move, at least you'd know that there was water there without having to dig the pavements up.
I'm not suggesting people go digging holes in parks,etc. Just the sensation of the wires crossing is peculiar. Jim, even if you know where your water-pipes are, what does it matter. In fact all the better. I'm not talking of some subliminal twitch you might subconciously create. Its a positive 90 degree turn. Please give it a go.
"If the sticks move, at least you'd know that there was water there without having to dig the pavements up."
It might do -- but on balance I suspect it wouldn't help. One explanation is some subliminal twitch, as svejk puts it. I don't think that shows anything to do with the sticks, but to do with the holder guiding them. Surely the real test of whether dowsing works is if you don't know where the water was to start with.
Just to clarify, in case I do decide to try it for the sake of it -- what do I need exactly? Your instructions said "L shaped rods 300/100" which doesn't mean much to me, and then how far apart is "300"?
It might do -- but on balance I suspect it wouldn't help. One explanation is some subliminal twitch, as svejk puts it. I don't think that shows anything to do with the sticks, but to do with the holder guiding them. Surely the real test of whether dowsing works is if you don't know where the water was to start with.
Just to clarify, in case I do decide to try it for the sake of it -- what do I need exactly? Your instructions said "L shaped rods 300/100" which doesn't mean much to me, and then how far apart is "300"?
Thanks, svejk.
Thing is though, what would it gain, for either of us? No matter how highly I might think of my experimental abilities (and they aren't that good, I'm a theorist), one experiment by one person in one road is hardly going to get any coverage -- not least because I can't guarantee that it would be fair, in terrain that I know to some extent. On the other hand, how would you react if I did do this test and came back with a negative result? I'd certainly wouldn't expect you to overturn your own beliefs based on what I said -- I might be lying, or I might have "done it wrong", or something.
In short, who would gain anything?
Thing is though, what would it gain, for either of us? No matter how highly I might think of my experimental abilities (and they aren't that good, I'm a theorist), one experiment by one person in one road is hardly going to get any coverage -- not least because I can't guarantee that it would be fair, in terrain that I know to some extent. On the other hand, how would you react if I did do this test and came back with a negative result? I'd certainly wouldn't expect you to overturn your own beliefs based on what I said -- I might be lying, or I might have "done it wrong", or something.
In short, who would gain anything?
For fun I have just tried it out on my two young grand daughters of
3and 7. with unintended consequencies.
I had 'seeded ' my large lawn with 12 , 2p coins and so I could find them again I hid a lolly stick 6ft away from each one of them in the flower beds .
Off they went with their divining rods and half an hour later they came back all triumphant . Look Grandad see what we have found ! And they handed me ( you've guessed it ) 12 lolly sticks.
3and 7. with unintended consequencies.
I had 'seeded ' my large lawn with 12 , 2p coins and so I could find them again I hid a lolly stick 6ft away from each one of them in the flower beds .
Off they went with their divining rods and half an hour later they came back all triumphant . Look Grandad see what we have found ! And they handed me ( you've guessed it ) 12 lolly sticks.
It certainly is a weird feeling when the wires cross like that - exactly like the weird feeling when the ouija-board pointer moves apparently of its own volition.
Hardly surprising, since they both have the same cause - the ideomotor effect, totally unconscious movement of the device by the participant(s). So science has certainly explained that aspect of it. Why it sometimes works when over water or some searched-for substance is a more complicated affair involving luck, co-incidence, conscious or unconscious noticing clues on the ground - one would have to look at each case in particular.
But in the end the brutal fact is that not one of the proper tests that have been carried out show that dowsing has anything in it at all, anecdotes or no anecdotes.
naomi and I have disagreed on this before. If every weird experience or idea which reason cannot disprove were to be put in that 'pending' tray it would have overflowed millennia ago and we would be spending all our time on phoney 'mysteries' instead of on all the very genuine and intriguing mysteries there are in this universe.
I am happy to assume that there are no invisible fairies at the bottom of my garden until someone brings me evidence to the contrary. Bring me evidence to support dowsing, rather that just stories or beliefs, and I'd be as intrigued as anyone else.
Hardly surprising, since they both have the same cause - the ideomotor effect, totally unconscious movement of the device by the participant(s). So science has certainly explained that aspect of it. Why it sometimes works when over water or some searched-for substance is a more complicated affair involving luck, co-incidence, conscious or unconscious noticing clues on the ground - one would have to look at each case in particular.
But in the end the brutal fact is that not one of the proper tests that have been carried out show that dowsing has anything in it at all, anecdotes or no anecdotes.
naomi and I have disagreed on this before. If every weird experience or idea which reason cannot disprove were to be put in that 'pending' tray it would have overflowed millennia ago and we would be spending all our time on phoney 'mysteries' instead of on all the very genuine and intriguing mysteries there are in this universe.
I am happy to assume that there are no invisible fairies at the bottom of my garden until someone brings me evidence to the contrary. Bring me evidence to support dowsing, rather that just stories or beliefs, and I'd be as intrigued as anyone else.
Hello Chakka, I think that’s the problem. People immediately align this to fairies, ghosts, Ouija boards, crystal healing, etc, but this is a physical phenomenon – allegedly – quite unlike an impression of glimpsing a fleeting ‘something’ in the shadows. If all these people are right - including all those who've posted here - and it does actually work, there must be a rational explanation – and actually I was quite taken with the link I posted. It’s at least an attempt to get to the bottom of it. Must ask my husband to cut a wire coat-hanger up for me. I think this warrants an extended wander around the garden. ;o)
My farmer neighbour who dowses for water has a theory that we all have an innate ability to find water, dating back to the days when we were nomadic hunter-gatherers, and the abiility to be able to 'scent' water meant the difference between life and death. Much in the same way that anmals can sniff out water. This ability, however, has atrophied over time in most of us because of lack of use. That's his theory, anyway.
Of course, there are others who claim to be able to dowse for water simply by holding a pendulum over a map. In which case my neighbour's theory cannot be true. Who knows? Not me, that's for sure, but it's an interesting topic to ponder.
Of course, there are others who claim to be able to dowse for water simply by holding a pendulum over a map. In which case my neighbour's theory cannot be true. Who knows? Not me, that's for sure, but it's an interesting topic to ponder.
/Seems strange that scientifically minded people will spend hours discrediting something they can test for themselves in a matter of minutes. /
A properly designed test that is is bias free and produces statistically meaningful results would take rather more than a few minutes. That is why science works and produces results.
I tried dowsing many years ago and was totally convinced that it works only if you suspend disbelief.
A properly designed test that is is bias free and produces statistically meaningful results would take rather more than a few minutes. That is why science works and produces results.
I tried dowsing many years ago and was totally convinced that it works only if you suspend disbelief.
This 'physical phenominum' reminds me very strongly of spoon-bending
I think those of us of a certain age will remember all the theories of how this happened and spoon bending parties and all the people who were convinced they had "the gift"
I must say as super-powers go mutating cutlery was pretty lame!
Again supposedly a 'physical phenomina' with lots of reported cases of people being able to do this but when put to careful test it didn't stand up to scutiny.
I think you have to consider some people's desperate desire to be 'special'. In these cases whether it is mediums or dowsers or spoon benders, they will so desperately want to have a special gift that they can convince themselves and others of it.
Then you have the second-order wanna bes - they don't necessarilly need 'the gift' themselves but want it to exist in the world - they feel an analytic scientific world is sterile and desperately want some magic in the world out of the reach of Science's all powerful hand.
Not that we ever meet people like that on AB!
I think those of us of a certain age will remember all the theories of how this happened and spoon bending parties and all the people who were convinced they had "the gift"
I must say as super-powers go mutating cutlery was pretty lame!
Again supposedly a 'physical phenomina' with lots of reported cases of people being able to do this but when put to careful test it didn't stand up to scutiny.
I think you have to consider some people's desperate desire to be 'special'. In these cases whether it is mediums or dowsers or spoon benders, they will so desperately want to have a special gift that they can convince themselves and others of it.
Then you have the second-order wanna bes - they don't necessarilly need 'the gift' themselves but want it to exist in the world - they feel an analytic scientific world is sterile and desperately want some magic in the world out of the reach of Science's all powerful hand.
Not that we ever meet people like that on AB!
You assume that we have not tried it Naomi. I have organised a trial before now for prospective dowsers, and I have participated in a trial to see if I had any dowsing ability.
And it is no good just "trying it " anyway.That tells us nothing of value. If it is to have any validity as any sort of corroborative evidence. it needs to be performed under controlled conditions. It has to be repeatable. It has to be blinded- neither the person monitoring the test nor the dowser must know where water is or is not to be found.
So I certainly would not bother to try it again unless it was under those circumstances as described above.
We could have " The Great AB Dowsing Test" if you want :) -bbut only if it meets pre-approved experimental conditions...
And it is no good just "trying it " anyway.That tells us nothing of value. If it is to have any validity as any sort of corroborative evidence. it needs to be performed under controlled conditions. It has to be repeatable. It has to be blinded- neither the person monitoring the test nor the dowser must know where water is or is not to be found.
So I certainly would not bother to try it again unless it was under those circumstances as described above.
We could have " The Great AB Dowsing Test" if you want :) -bbut only if it meets pre-approved experimental conditions...
