Water divining

[wireliner]

Water divining. A science or a load of rubbish?One of my work mates saw the movie "The Water Diviner" and asked if it could be done.So I showed him. I use one piece of wire to find an underground stream, 2 pieces to find the "X marks the spot" place to drill. He had a go and nothing happened which is not unusual. Most people can't do it. We walked away from my marks and had another go at it. This time I held his hand as he did it. When we crossed the stream, the wire swung in his hand. Scared the Hell out of him.Anybody else here have the "gift", seen proof?I know it works because I have drilled bores on my marks and my success rate would be close to 100%. Admittedly, there is nearly always underground water where ever you drill but I used the wires to find volume for irrigation.My best well was 150,000 gallons/hour with 3" of drawdown.

[BobL]

Water Divining is a delusion, and must be recognised as such.

See http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/australian-skeptics-divining-test/

[ailmik]

My daughter has this skill. We wanted to put a bore down and I gave her a couple of welding rods to see what she could come up with. We marked the spot that she choose with a couple of rocks and got the drillers in. I show the chap the spot that Alison had selected he than set off around the paddock with his own rods and ended up at the exact same spot. Good water about 60 meters down.

[chambezio]

It's a fascinating skill!!!!I have heard the same ting about someone who can putting their hand on the shoulder of someone who can't and getting success.
Sceptical??? Well I can't answer that but the success stories abound ion number so their must be something in it.
Our driller found 550 gallons an hour three and a half meters from the house which meant a very cheap electrical installation for the pressure system. The bore has been working for 20 years with NO interruption to supply at all.
I do think our "evolution" as sophisticated beings has lost some spirituality along the way.

[BobL]

It's not a skill or a gift, it just confirms there's a lot of water under the ground.
When so called "successful water diviners" are put under rigorous testing their success rate comes down to pure chance.

In the most comprehensive testing of divining claims done by Dick Smith and Australian Skeptics, a Mr Randi put up $10,000 if diviners could find water, metal or gold above pure chance and none of them came even close to meeting their claims.

This is a quote from the website I quoted above.


Though diviners will continue to be hired by believers in such powers, and wells will be dug with great precision on spots located by forked-stick folks, these water supplies will not prove that dowsing works. They will only prove that there is a great deal of water down under the earth, and we do not need silly folks wiggling sticks to tell us that.

[wireliner]

The maps for the underground watering system at the local golf club were found to be out of whack when they decided to lay new lines. They were hitting pipelines where they thought there were none. I was asked to find them, which I did, with a wire!

I once met a guy who used a forked stick. It didn't work for me until he grabbed my arm. It turned so quick it cut my hand.

[rwbuild]

I have the water divining ability and have found water every time, I use wire.

[Master Splinter]

I manage to find water every time I turn the kitchen tap on.

Numerous studies since 1948 have found no reliability greater than chance.

Any dowsers are encouraged to put themselves forward for the US$1,000,000 prize available. https://au.news.yahoo.com/technology/a/25606118/find-water-and-i-ll-give-you-a-million/

This is just a specific call - the JREF Foundation actually has a $1,000,000 prize waiting (since 1964) for anyone who can prove any one of dozens of paranormal powers.

Given that it's been waiting for proof for 50-odd years so far (including numerous dowsers), it sounds pretty safe - http://web.randi.org/the-million-dollar-challenge.html )

[jhovel]

That is an interesting subject!
Particularly since I don't believe it and write it off as 'another pseudoscience' - but I can do it. So could my father and all of my Australian family.
My theory is that we have the ability to sense something - maybe water, maybe geological variations of some sort that are sometimes connected with water underground - whatever it is. The hazeltwigs or fencing wire are just a way of amplifying minute muscle tension variations we are not aware of. The way they are typically held is inherently unstable and some muscle tension is required to stop them/it moving by gravitiy. Maybe because we can't feel the very fine involuntary movement we don;t correct for it and gravity makes the wires/sticks move out of balance.
As for rigorous testing, I know it doesn't work and don't believe it would ever work. The chances of being right under pressure will prevent any success anyway.
But I think it's a bizarre phenomenon that has been practiced and believed in for centuries or millenia.....
Interesting isn't it?

[wireliner]

The best "proof" that I have seen occurred when a farmer asked me to divine an irrigation bore that I was going to drill. I wandered around the paddock, letting the wires lead me to a spot that they indicated was the best chance of large volume water. What I didn't know was that he had an old, local diviner in the day before to do the same thing. This guy had been doing it for 80 years. I stuck the wire in the ground and told him that this was the spot. Two 18" away was a cow paddy. He flipped it over to reveal that it had a white "X" painted on it. He tested me against the old bloke from the day before. Being 18" apart after wandering around a 200 acre paddock is pretty freaky!

I must add that I only use it to find large volume of bore water. I can't tell the quality.

[Farmer Geoff]

I reckon jhovel is on the money. Maybe humans have instincts from ages ago which are not used now and we don't know they exist and wouldn't trust them in any case. The wire is like a placebo which offers an explanation for events which may be generated by natural forces within us which are set free when unshackled by restrictive beliefs. A lot of humans would have an instinct about where water may be under a landscape and the wire allows the instincts to overcome doubt and other beliefs. The inner person drives the wire to find the water, not vice versa. So "divining" works for some just like a placebo might fix a headache. Use it if it works! But as Dick Smith proved, human instinct doesn't know where someone has buried a drum of water.

[BobL]

The best "proof" that I have seen occurred when a farmer asked me to divine an irrigation bore that I was going to drill. I wandered around the paddock, letting the wires lead me to a spot that they indicated was the best chance of large volume water. What I didn't know was that he had an old, local diviner in the day before to do the same thing. This guy had been doing it for 80 years. I stuck the wire in the ground and told him that this was the spot. Two 18" away was a cow paddy. He flipped it over to reveal that it had a white "X" painted on it. He tested me against the old bloke from the day before. Being 18" apart after wandering around a 200 acre paddock is pretty freaky!.

Unfortunately that doesn't prove much or anything. Basic Hydrogeography will tell you that aquifers are not small spots under an paddock but very large (hundreds through to hundreds of thousands of acres) in size. That farmer could have struck water by drilling anywhere in his paddock. A more impressive skill would be the ability to find a dry spot under a paddock as these are much rarer but of course this has no practical application

There is no "mysterious inner force" but there is something called an "ideomotor reaction". This is where the diviner uses the surroundings including topography, unconscious clues dropped by the client or others and other hunches to unconsciously move the stick or wire. A water diviner will always looks good when he tells the farmer to drill in the gully and not on the hill Where the flow is 10 times less but it's not rocket science the the aquifer pressure would be lower at that point.

The thing is the diviner HONESTLY believes the water is moving the stick or wire but they are doing it unconsciously. The same reaction is observed with users of a ouija board. where users spell out messages from the dead they believe they are being sent.

From Wikipedia.

Paranormal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranormal) and supernatural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural) beliefs associated with Ouija have been harshly criticized by the scientific community, since they are characterized as pseudoscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience). The action of the board can be parsimoniously (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsimony) explained by unconscious movements of those controlling the pointer, a psychophysiological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychophysiology) phenomenon known as the ideomotor effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideomotor_effect).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouija#cite_note-Shermer2-3)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouija#cite_note-Adams-4)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouija#cite_note-Skepdic-5)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouija#cite_note-6)

[wireliner]

My point was that divining led both of us to nearly the same spot. A unconfined aquifer is generally "flat". That is, water 30m deep on the flat will be 60m deep on a 30m hill, 20m deep in a 10m gully. Water does move underground. It's called migration. What I divine is a spot where the water is moving the quickest. In the S.E of SA, quite often that can mean a cave or a large fracture. You stick a hole there and borehole entry is significantly higher than sticking a hole in a dense, less porous formation.

I am a fourth generation waterwell driller. I have drilled all over the S.E of SA. I know that I will hit water anywhere. It is the volume for irrigating where divining helps.

Just for interest sake, the deepest aquifer I have seen was in Tirrawarra #64. Flowed to surface in a Drill Stem Test set at 10,200ft. Not bad water either.

The picture is of 8 Mile Creek, SA. That is not surface water. It is the spot where underground water meets the surface and enters the sea.

[rustynail]

Unfortunately that doesn't prove much or anything. Basic Hydrogeography will tell you that aquifers are not small spots under an paddock but very large (hundreds through to hundreds of thousands of acres) in size. That farmer could have struck water by drilling anywhere in his paddock. A more impressive skill would be the ability to find a dry spot under a paddock as these are much rarer but of course this has no practical application

There is no "mysterious inner force" but there is something called an "ideomotor reaction". This is where the diviner uses the surroundings including topography, unconscious clues dropped by the client or others and other hunches to unconsciously move the stick or wire. A water diviner will always looks good when he tells the farmer to drill in the gully and not on the hill Where the flow is 10 times less but it's not rocket science the the aquifer pressure would be lower at that point.

The thing is the diviner HONESTLY believes the water is moving the stick or wire but they are doing it unconsciously. The same reaction is observed with users of a ouija board. where users spell out messages from the dead they believe they are being sent.

From Wikipedia.
Oh boy, here we go again...water divining. I grew up in the far west of NSW. Water was and still is a precious commodity. Water diviners were and still are well respected for their ability. There are many examples of success in the most unlikely places. Here is one:
A friend of mine purchased a property near Sofala NSW. He contacted a drilling company and they suggested drilling along the nearby dry creek bed. No water was found after several dry attempts. He gave up on the idea.
Upon visiting him, I was told the story. I asked him if I could have a "look." Taking two pieces of fencing wire I walked around the house, ranging further out each circuit, until the wires crossed. I then went around the house in the opposite direction. The wires crossed at the same spot.
Knowing how much money he had put into previous attempts, I suggested he try another diviner, a chap from Hill End I happened to know. Some months later he contacted the old bloke who said the spot was just near an old tyre lying in the paddock... My marker from my previous trip. All unknown to the old bloke.
The drillers were called back in. They were doubtful as the house was on top of a hill and their previous attempts had been futile in a much more likely spot. To add strength to their argument they agreed that if water was found there would be no charge. If not, it would be hourly rate, as they thought it was all a waste of time.
Good water at sixty two feet! We refer to the property as Free Wells.
Bob, your comment about the difficulty finding a dry spot is pretty silly. Many the well has been dug with a dusty bottom. I agree there are vast amounts of underground water, but often the depths are beyond practical drilling. The art is finding shallow wells.
Good water diviners don't shop for information. When I was a kid, there was a well respected chap in town (Wilcannia.) The only information he required was the address and which paddock. I used to often go with him to learn. Farmers prefer not to furnish too much info as they want to get value out of the divining not just confirmation.
As for the Dick Smith Fiasco..... Find water in plastic pipes a foot under the surface, laid the day before.... You'd have to be brain dead.
Here's the funny thing... Where my wires cross there is water. Where they stay straight there is none, or at least not a drillable depth. Ive been doing this for about forty years and haven't had a dry well. Often the flow is insufficient and the bore has been backfilled.
I can give you many other examples of confirmed two party divinings should you be interested.

[Twisted Tenon]

I do think our "evolution" as sophisticated beings has lost some spirituality along the way.

:whs:

I'm interested to know the connection between wire and water. I thought water diviners used sticks in days gone by.

TT

[Master Splinter]

Similarly to water divining, I've found that when I drop a nut or bolt under my car when I'm working on it, the nut always rolls to the most inaccessible place under the car.*

So again, I encourage any good water diviners to take on the JREF US$1,000,000 challenge - sure, it might be a few weeks solid work to get it all up and running (spread over several months) but there's that million dollars waiting. That'd be about $1.3 million in Australian pesos. Surely that's worth a few months of fiddling around!

If you are worried that artificial test conditions might put you off, you are able to propose your own set of test criteria (remember, they must be testing for something that can be agreed on ahead of time as a clear demonstration). You are quite able to do an open test (where the location of the water is known to all) to confirm that the test conditions will actually cause a positive indication for you.



*Except for those times when it didn't, and I forgot about them, or when it was just hard to reach but not actually most inaccessible but I counted it anyway as my back hurt bending over to pick it up, or I felt that 'rolled all the way over on the other side of the car' counted because of how far I had to walk, or it was actually just behind me but I didn't see it there for ages so that counted as inaccessible too, or it landed in an oil drip making it all yukky and I didn't want to touch it, so that's inaccessible, just in a different way...

[AlexS]

I think BobL has summed it up well.
More than 50 years ago a study was done by the NSW govt. Senior Hydrogeologist into the effectiveness of diviners v hydrogeologists. (OK, I know he's not a completely disinterested party.) He found that, working in their home territory, diviners were able to find water with about the same accuracy as hydrogeologists. However, hydrogeologists were able to achieve a consistently high standard even when working out of their area.

He believed that it was probably due to what BobL calls ideomotor action, and this, to me, seems the most likely cause, apart from a few charlatans out there.

[wireliner]

Similarly to water divining, I've found that when I drop a nut or bolt under my car when I'm working on it, the nut always rolls to the most inaccessible place under the car.*

So again, I encourage any good water diviners to take on the JREF US$1,000,000 challenge - sure, it might be a few weeks solid work to get it all up and running (spread over several months) but there's that million dollars waiting. That'd be about $1.3 million in Australian pesos. Surely that's worth a few months of fiddling around!

If you are worried that artificial test conditions might put you off, you are able to propose your own set of test criteria (remember, they must be testing for something that can be agreed on ahead of time as a clear demonstration). You are quite able to do an open test (where the location of the water is known to all) to confirm that the test conditions will actually cause a positive indication for you.



*Except for those times when it didn't, and I forgot about them, or when it was just hard to reach but not actually most inaccessible but I counted it anyway as my back hurt bending over to pick it up, or I felt that 'rolled all the way over on the other side of the car' counted because of how far I had to walk, or it was actually just behind me but I didn't see it there for ages so that counted as inaccessible too, or it landed in an oil drip making it all yukky and I didn't want to touch it, so that's inaccessible, just in a different way...


For a million bucks, I'll give it a crack. To make it simpler, let me find a water pipeline that is known to you. Much easier.

[Bob38S]

Have read this thread with interest as I am certainly of the skeptic school.

That being said I also tend to have an open mind rather than set ideas and have always been curious.

Long story short, about 30 years ago a mate bought a block of land out in the scrub - no town water. Through relatives, one of the grandmothers was supposed to be able to find water. We went to the block and after about an hour she had marked the "spot", I am thinking this is Bravo Sierra. She, about 75 not out and about 5 foot nothing tall and relatively thin assured us it was correct.

Grandma encouraged us to have a go - nix, nothing, nada. She then took me by my left hand and we held a green forked stick in the free hands horizontally and walked from one side of the block to the other. As we neared the spot the fork started to turn down, when over the spot it was vertical, moving further the forked turned towards us. There is no way the old girl was twisting he fork as I had hold of one side and she the other, I tried to prevent the turning down but only succeeded in stripping the bark off in my hand.

I am at a total loss for an explanation especially as when the spot was drilled some weeks later and there was good water and flow.

Perhaps the whole idea of finding water with forked sticks or wires falls into the "you can't be serious idea" but in this case it worked.

[rustynail]

OK here's another one for you: Freemans Reach NSW renown area for small seams. Usual method for such country is find a cross stream. A stream is divined and direction noted. Divining parallel with the stream another stream, crossing the first is found. The intersection is marked and the drillers start drilling. At about 40 ft water is found but poor flow. The drillers drill on until a second wet seam is reached increasing the flow by over double. Now a usable volume of water. This bore has been in operation for twenty years.
Yeah I know, its all BS but the results are there and we keep having success.
Oh I almost forgot, Little Hartley NSW, A friend bought a block with the intention to build. She asked me to
"look" for water. It was everywhere! In every direction the wires would turn in. It didnt make much sense.
Her husband decided to go to Council to see what he could find out. He was informed the area was a subterranean floating swamp. They sold the block and built elsewhere.
But hey, we're just having ourselves on.
Can I explain it? No, not really. Does it work? Well it does for me. A million bucks? Why, can't they just go out with the diviner, mark the spot, drill the hole and see what comes up, then move to a spot where he got no signal and dig there? Jees, it aint rocket science.

[Master Splinter]

For a million bucks, I'll give it a crack. To make it simpler, let me find a water pipeline that is known to you. Much easier.

You'll find the application form here: http://web.randi.org/the-million-dollar-challenge.html

You can find a (partial) list of previous challengers here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=43

I think they've officially tested about 40 dowsers so far. No claimant has yet managed to even pass the preliminary testing.

Sadly, they didn't test the person who said he could prevent earthquakes, as he required "a clairvoyant, who is real" to predict an earthquake for him to prevent (they were unable to find a real clairvoyant).

If you need assistance with preliminary testing, I'm sure the Australia Skeptics (http://www.skeptics.com.au/) would be only too happy to help. You could even pick up their $100,000 challenge, too! http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/prize/

[BobL]

. . . Can I explain it? No, not really. Does it work? Well it does for me. A million bucks? Why, can't they just go out with the diviner, mark the spot, drill the hole and see what comes up, then move to a spot where he got no signal and dig there? Jees, it aint rocket science.

If we relied on that sort of testing protocol for scientific advancement we'd still be back in the dark ages.

If you want to see the correct way to perform the test read my link to the Dick Smith and the Australian skeptics in my first post in this thread.

If the test is performed in the manner you suggest there will be too many false positive finds.

It's a bit like a witch doctor going into ebola country and pointing out the carriers i.e. there are so many he can't help but get it right.

[rustynail]

If we relied on that sort of testing protocol for scientific advancement we'd still be back in the dark ages.

If you want to see the correct way to perform the test read my link to the Dick Smith and the Australian skeptics in my first post in this thread.

If the test is performed in the manner you suggest there will be too many false positive finds.

It's a bit like a witch doctor going into ebola country and pointing out the carriers i.e. there are so many he can't help but get it right.
Sorry Bob, I dont follow your logic. What I am suggesting is the diviner marks his spot and drill one hole. He then nominates a spot where he gets no signal and drill there. How can two holes produce two many false positive finds.
As for the Dick Smith fiasco, I would never try to divine new water sources, particularly in plastic. I wouldnt even try to find a domestic water supply...Too hit and miss for my liking. If you consider the test set up they used back in 1980 as scientific, you have a very different take on science to me.
By the way, a friend and myself were invited to take part, we declined for the reasons above.
To say that like the witch doctor, you cant miss. Well thats not right either, otherwise it wouldnt matter where you drilled you would get water.
Kurmond NSW, Japanese interests set up a fish farm for eels. They built two large sheds and had a bore sunk in what was considered by hydro's as the most likely location, about 200m from the shed. No water.
The manager asked me to have a "look." The wires turned 5m from the back of the shed. The resulting bore operated successfully for about two years, until they tried to pull the pump with a dozer, snapped the wire which shot down the hole upon the release of tension and formed a "rat nest" on top of the pump.
The list goes on.
Science my hat.

[wireliner]

I drilled a backyard bore that had water but it was in sand. I chased it down to find limestone but struck out. I pulled the pin at 75m. I got the wires out and found a stream the other side of the block, 18m away. Limestone, clean water, bore drilled to 36m.

[rustynail]

Out of all the drillers I know, I can only think of one company that doesnt carry a set of wires in the truck.
This was the mob that failed to find water at the Sofala site. Just saying.

[Bob38S]

I think the Mythbusters would have to go with "Plausible" rather than "Proven or Busted".

[rustynail]

My FIL was a surveyor on the Snowy Mtn Scheme. He was German and a lover of all things scientific. Upon the establishment of one of the semi permanent camps it was decided to put a bore down. The Hydro's, of which there were any number, gave an opinion. But old Mac, one of the chain men reckoned they were dreaming and picked a spot about 100yrds away. The gentlemen with the uni degrees site was tried first. No water. They then laughingly turned to old Mac and said,''You still reckon there's water around here?"
The drillers drilled on Macs mark and again, no water was found. Mac had been away all day working with my FIL. They were pleased to advise him of his failure when he arrived back in camp. His only comment was,"Did you drill straight? The stream's only about three foot wide." My FIL set up his theodolite over the
hole and informed the gathering that it was out of plumb. Another hole was drilled beside the original with the aid of the instrument to determine plumb. Water at about 25ft. When they turned to congratulate Mac, he was in his tent snoring his head off.
My FIL told me this story when I sheepishly asked him his take on water divining as I was putting in a new dam at home and wanting to sink a bore nearby. Yes, that bore was successful also. My FIL tried and tried to work the wires but had no joy. Even when he knew the spot I had marked, the rods would remain Germanically unmoving, much to his annoyance. After that, whenever he introduced me to someone, he would always add, "But he's a bit kooky."

[Master Splinter]

Well, if it's so reliable, those with dowsing abilities should be able to organise an acceptable test protocol and make a neat $100,000 and US$1,000,000.

All the dowsers in the Dick Smith test agreed ahead of time that they were sure that they would be able to locate water in the test rig.

All checked the area ahead of testing to make sure there were no influences that might throw off their abilities (existing underground streams and so on).

All tested their abilities to correctly dowse the water location when the location was known to them (so they were confident they could get a correct response in the test environment).

All were given up to 10 attempts (actual number decided by the dowser) to correctly locate the pipe with water.

Despite this, none of the dowsers were able to show a success rate higher than random chance.

[rustynail]

All the dowsers did not agree. Many of us wouldn't be in it as I mentioned earlier. A lot of blokes thought for the money they would have a go. Money speaks all languages and there are a lot of get rich quick people out there. There is no doubt about it, the Dick Smith Debacle did more damage than good. It was not a true test of divining. Anybody that knows anything about it would know the risks of trying to find water in plastic laid the day before. It doesnt work like that, so luck would be a big factor. The tests proved nothing. It was naive at best and scurrilous at worst.

[issatree]

Hi to all the Skeptics & others,
I was employed by The State Electricity Commission of Victoria. We were divided up into Gangs, & each to a particular Area.
Poles had to be changed, so there was no water worries there.
When we went into a new area, we had to be careful not to dig up PMG Cables in those days.
I was lucky enough to be able to find the Water Pipes, with 2 pieces of Copper Wire, but of course we knew they were there, but where ??.
I don't recall ever getting it wrong & we never went through any Water Pipes.
So it was either on one side of the road or the other. A few of the Chaps wood have a go but they weren't as accurate as me.

Went to the Kyneton Lost Trades Fair, & there was a Water Divining Chap there explaining all about it, but he used 2 bits of Plastic Tube to put the wires in, & also used a forked stick.
I am a believer, even if the others are not, & I know it works, for me anyway.

[Master Splinter]

They were all able to correctly 'detect' the water in the pipes when they knew its position.As soon as its position was hidden from them, they lost this ability to detect it at any rate higher than chance.What test protocol would you suggest? Keep in mind that in test after test after test, in Australia and around the world, dowsers are unable to demonstrate results better than chance.

[Vernonv]

Stupid forum wrecking my post ....

I'm very skeptical that water divining actually works. I have however used it once to successfully locate a water trough line (I had no other option other than just digging until I found it).

Maybe I just got lucky. :?

[rustynail]

They were all able to correctly 'detect' the water in the pipes when they knew its position.As soon as its position was hidden from them, they lost this ability to detect it at any rate higher than chance.What test protocol would you suggest? Keep in mind that in test after test after test, in Australia and around the world, dowsers are unable to demonstrate results better than chance.
As stated in my previous post, I would not attempt new water in plastic. I agree, the chances of success would be exactly that ....chance. My one regret is not attending the "tests" back in 1980. Just to see who showed up.
To me, it makes no difference how MANY tests are carried out, more the fact WHAT the tests comprise.
You see, I wouldnt expect to be able to find a running hose in long grass. In fact, I would not expect to be able to find water of any description in a recently set up arrangement. But I'm more than happy to have a "look" for natural, old water, deep underground.
What protocol would I suggest? As above; natural,old water, deep underground. Not some man made, accelerated weather test type set up that has no similarity to the conditions in the field.
I would have thought the fact that two diviners can come up with the same spot would have been good enough but no, we have to involve some iceberg towing twit to come up with a "test" that, due to his dollar value, stands as fair and equitable. Please.
When I was a kid, there was an old Aboriginal chap in the far west of NSW who was well respected in the area as a diviner. He was blind. Born blind. As I mentioned earlier, I used to tag along with one of the local diviners. On this particular occasion, the two of them were going out together to "look for water in a particular paddock and hoping to find it in a particular corner as it would be a convenient location. I bummed along for the ride.
The sighted chap found first signal and marked the spot with a large chunk of sandstone he had brought along on the back of the ute. As the blind chap came into range, his wires swung in and he then promptly tripped over the rock! I guess we could take that as a confirmed location. On my last visit to the property, some 50 years after the event, the bore continues to supply water.
There are many things unexplained by science and many things that are difficult to test.

[wireliner]

I totally agree. There is too much evidence to dispute it. As for pipe lines, old galv ones make the wires go nuts. Walk over one, wire turns then straightens once you have past it. PVC or poly is a bit harder. You have to walk slower or you miss it The skeptics test is easy. Find a known pipe line and get the diviner to find it. After that he can find an underground water stream. The difference between the two are significant. One is very small and sharp, the other is softer and requires a gentler approach. Any member in Adelaide? I'll show them.

[snowyskiesau]

If the skeptics test is so easy, then why not go and collect your $1,000,000?
Anyone who claims to be able to find water by divining, is delusional. If they charge for the 'service' then it's criminal.

[Poppa]

Very interesting topic. I've had personal experience of what some would call paranormal abilities and while I'm a skeptic by nature, there are things that I've witnessed and that I've experienced that I cannot explain, so water divining is not something I'm prepared to discount. I also come from a family with a history in the outback and have been told by trusted family members that have personally witnessed water diviners that they can do it reliably and accurately, which inclines me to believe that this is something that can be done. I'd love to see the prize claimed.

[Master Splinter]

The diviners in the Dick Smith test were all able to divine the water location in the pipes reliably and repeatably when they could see the water was there, and they all confirmed they could feel/sense/divine the water in its location with their divining skill.

But these diviners were then unable to divine the correct water location once they had find it without being able to see what pipe it was in.


How about alternative tests?

How about a test in an open field, with a number of diviners? It's been done.

"The Dale et al blindfold test took place in Maine during August 1949. A sandy field was carefully chosen where visual cues to the presence of water were absent, where water was present at depths not over 5 metres, and where the ground was soft enough for test pipes to be driven down without drilling....the diviners' estimates of depth and flow were wildly high and even the best showed no relation with reality. Worse, the diviners agreed neither with each other nor with themselves when blindfolded."


Or a comparison between divined locations and undivined locations? Done.


"Between 1918 and 1945 (the last year for which records were kept) the NSW Water Resources Commission was obliged to drill on whatever site the farmer specified. Of 1832 divined sites, 70.4% yielded ample usable water and 14.7% yielded no water. Which may seem like convincing support for divining. But 1858 undivined sites performed even better -- 83.9% yielded ample usable water and only 7.4% yielded no water."

"In the 1950s the farmers in Central Australia demanded that the government employ diviners because geologists were not finding enough water. So the government did. A subsequent check of the records showed that the geologists' success rate was 1 in 3 but the diviners' success rate was only 1 in 12."



How about a simple blind test...that's been done, too


"Let any blindfolded diviner find underground water on any flat site free of obstructions. Then see if the position can be reproduced when the blindfold is removed. Take care to avoid surface cues, onlooker feedback, and markers that can be seen by peeking down the nose. Such tests have been been reported in Victoria and South Australia, New Zealand, and the USA, involving a total of 87 diviners. None performed better than chance."



From: http://www.undeceivingourselves.org/S-divi.htm

[rustynail]

[QUOTE=Master Splinter;1861802]The diviners in the Dick Smith test were all able to divine the water location in the pipes reliably and repeatably when they could see the water was there, and they all confirmed they could feel/sense/divine the water in its location with their divining skill.

But these diviners were then unable to divine the correct water location once they had find it without being able to see what pipe it was in.


How about alternative tests?

How about a test in an open field, with a number of diviners? It's been done.

"The Dale et al blindfold test took place in Maine during August 1949. A sandy field was carefully chosen where visual cues to the presence of water were absent, where water was present at depths not over 5 metres, and where the ground was soft enough for test pipes to be driven down without drilling....the diviners' estimates of depth and flow were wildly high and even the best showed no relation with reality. Worse, the diviners agreed neither with each other nor with themselves when blindfolded."


Or a comparison between divined locations and undivined locations? Done.

"Between 1918 and 1945 (the last year for which records were kept) theNSW Water Resources Commission was obliged to drill on whatever site thefarmer specified. Of 1832 divined sites, 70.4% yielded ample usablewater and 14.7% yielded no water. Which may seem like convincing supportfor divining. But 1858 undivined sites performed even better -- 83.9%yielded ample usable water and only 7.4% yielded no water."

"In the 1950s the farmers inCentral Australia demanded that the government employ diviners becausegeologists were not finding enough water. So the government did. Asubsequent check of the records showed that the geologists' success ratewas 1 in 3 but the diviners' success rate was only 1 in 12."


How about a simple blind test...that's been done, too


"Let any blindfolded diviner find underground water on any flat site freeof obstructions. Then see if the position can be reproduced when theblindfold is removed. Take care to avoid surface cues, onlookerfeedback, and markers that can be seen by peeking down the nose. Suchtests have been been reported Victoria and South Australia, NewZealand, and the USA, involving a total of 87 diviners. None performedbetter than chance."


From: http://www.undeceivingourselves.org/S-divi.htm
[/QUOT
There we go again, another man made water source, in soft ground so a pipe could be driven down.
That is not a field situation. I would not be surprised at wide and varied results.
I repeat, it is not the NUMBER of tests, its the NATURE or NATURAL form of the test.
How do you explain the examples I have given in previous posts? How do you explain the chap tripping over the rock? How do you explain the many cases of confirmed dual findings.
The "tests" you have mentioned all appear to be man made.
Here is how I test myself; I go out and "look" for water in an area convenient to the client. If there is no signal, I move further afield. Once I get a signal, I mark the spot. Drilling can follow and there will be water.
Now you may find this difficult to believe and I except that. The fact of the matter is, when the wires cross, there is water below. In 50 years of doing this I have been wrong once and that turned out to be an old metal water pipe 2ft underground and I got a signal from that.
Personally I think the "tests" are ridiculous and only go to show the limited knowledge on the subject.
Many times have I heard it said that the diviner allows the rods to swing. Some may. But in my case I drive my thumbs into the back of the wire as hard as I can to counter wind and canting. Once a signal is found, I will return over the site with hard thumbing and a slight outward cant on my wrists. The wires will still swing in.
So on the strength of that, I guess there is not much more I can do to make you happy.
The one fact that stands; all the bores that I have been involved with produced water. So tell me, why would I stop doing what I am doing?

[Master Splinter]

There we go again, another man made water source, in soft ground so a pipe could be driven down.

- It was a natural water table, not artificial.
- The pipe they were talking about were pipes sunk where the diviner indicated, so that they could measure the amount and flow rate of any water there.
- The diviners were given two attempts over the area; on their second attempt they were blindfolded so that they could not see if they were in an area they had previously indicated on.
- None of the diviners managed to 'find' the same spots they selected on their first traverse over the field. They didn't 'find' the same spots in the field the other diviners did, either.



I repeat, it is not the NUMBER of tests, its the NATURE or NATURAL form of the test.

See above. Your definition seems to be that when a diviner can pass a test, it's a proper test, and when they fail a test, it's not a proper test. Can you explain why dowsing only works anecdotally?

How do you explain the examples I have given in previous posts?

Anecdotes are not evidence. Anecdotes are not 'created' in test circumstances where other reasons for success can be ruled out.

I can give the anecdote that my magic tiger repelling rock works really well, with my proof being that I've never seen a tiger around the house since I've had it.

This does not prove that my rock actually repels tigers, as there may be many other reasons why I haven't seen tigers around the house.

When test after test shows no correlation better than chance, and when data collected comparing divined locations vs. random or hydrographically selected locations (and not part of a formal test, just the results of a drilling program) show that the divined locations were no better than random chance... the only explanation is random chance.

You as a diviner might claim a 100% success rate, but this might be based on factors such as:

- Your divining has been done in high surface aquifer regions, where the chance of finding water by random chance is already 70-80%.
- You have a keen enough eye to read the local geography and identify physical features associated with high water table areas; this might increase your success rate to 80-90%
- Your certainty "No, it's here, just keep drilling" may keep them drilling when they would have normally abandoned it and so they hit a deeper than expected aquifer.
- You might have forgotten or 'reclassified' times when you didn't succeed.

How do you explain higher success rate for sites bored without divining?

Remember, those figures were all derived from natural, in-the-field results and were not part of a 'does divining work' test, they were just record-keeping from a NSW Water Board drilling program.


I have been wrong once and that turned out to be an old metal water pipe 2ft underground and I got a signal from that.

You were complaining just a few sentences ago that dowsing didn't work for man made pipes, just "the NATURE or NATURAL" water sources, which is why no dowsers passed any of the tests.


Personally I think the "tests" are ridiculous and only go to show the limited knowledge on the subject.

Do you want to buy my tiger repelling rock? It works really well. No tigers. None. Ever. I recon it will keep tigers well away from you when you are dowsing, and we all know how dangerous tigers are!


So tell me, why would I stop doing what I am doing?

Feel free to keep doing it if you do it for entertainment, but, like astrology, homoeopathy and religion, don't take yourself too seriously and don't bet your life on it; if you charge money for your divining services, maybe think of a more reputable career like selling real estate or writing parking tickets.

[rustynail]

Now that tiger repelling rock sounds like a very good idea. I tell you what, how about you and I take a trip to Toronga Park. My daughter has an old school mate who is one of the head keepers in the cat section. We'll toss you and your rock in and see how you go.
Unfortunately I am limited to past experiences to draw on to give examples of incidences in the field. Be they anecdotal or not, they are occurrences that have occurred and I have been witness to.
The false reading I got from a water pipe is in no way uncommon. I never said you can not get a signal from a pipe. I said it was not reliable enough for my liking. Mind you, that pipe was metal and had been in the ground for about 100years. Probably long enough to perform like a natural aquifer. I was not aware of the tests you were quoting where pipes were driven into the ground when water was found. What I did notice was your mention of soft ground. Soft enough to sink pipes down to water level. I refer you back to my previous post regarding the Little Hartley findings. This was the site were signal was everywhere. It turned out to be a floating swamp. Nothing visible from the surface, just a normal hill top paddock.
If I am asked to look for water on soft sandy ground I always explain to the client that the chances of accuracy are much diminished. In fact, I suggest that we are probably wasting time. The harder the ground the better the signal. The rougher the ground the better the signal. Some formations signal better than others.
The comment about my failure to accept any test that is not successful for the diviner is not correct. I have given my reasons for not accepting the tests you have nominated. This has no bearing on success or failure, just purely the nature of the test.
What you fail to understand is that the wire moves of its own accord. Most skeptics assume the operator moves the wire either deliberately or subconsciously. I can assure you, for me it is quite the contrary. I do my best to make it difficult for the wires to turn. But of course you would say we only have my word for that. Many are the people I have shown how to do it who thought it was all smoke and mirrors, but you should see their faces when the wires swing in and hit them in the chest. Some are not so lucky as they dont seem to have the gift. For them I have sympathy... I understand it is even more difficult for them to come to terms with the whole concept.
I dont know which category you fall into...have never tried or not successful. Sadly we cant oblige you once you have met your maker at Toronga park.

[AlexS]

Williamson WH (1980). Water Divining: Fact or Fiuction? Pamphlet issued by the NSW Water Resources Commission. The NSW results are also cited in Ward LK (1946). The Occurrence, Composition, Testing and Utilization of Underground Water in South Australia and the Search for Future Supplies Bulletin No 23, Geological Survey of South Australia, Section 14 (pages 123-149), The unreliability of divining or dowsing in the location of water supplies.
Thanks, Master Splinter. The Ward paper was the one to which I was referring in my earlier post.

[BobL]

Very interesting topic. I've had personal experience of what some would call paranormal abilities and while I'm a skeptic by nature, there are things that I've witnessed and that I've experienced that I cannot explain, so water divining is not something I'm prepared to discount. I also come from a family with a history in the outback and have been told by trusted family members that have personally witnessed water diviners that they can do it reliably and accurately, which inclines me to believe that this is something that can be done. I'd love to see the prize claimed.

Hummmmmm . . . .. that sounds like the arguments used by some smokers or the anti-vaccination crowd.
All my family were (smokers, not vaccinated) and lived to a ripe old age so in my family it appears we can smoke/avoid vaccines and it won't hurt us.

[Ruddy]

This is a true story.....

In 1954 my dear old Dad bought two adjacent blocks of land on the Mornington Peninsular. The land was near the back beach at Rye Victoria and in those days there was no water, no electricity.......just a dirt track road to this bit of bush. He built a modest holiday home on one block and we got water from a corrugated iron water tank. My mother wanted to cultivate a garden but without water this was a forlorn exercise.
Dad was told about a local guru who claimed he could X mark the spot so he arrived with a forked stick and began the long walk around the block. He duly stopped at a point and said to dig here and you will find water.
My father started the dig and my older brothers helped. After the first six feet Dad shored up the hole and then continued and after a second shore up and then a hand auger he had to admit defeat. No water, just the same sandy soil that is the Peninsular. The exercise was not entirely futile..
Never one to despair, Dad did not fill in the hole. He had a light bulb moment and just moved the outdoor Dunny over the hole and as I recall, when you went for a dump you could count to seven or eight before you heard the thud...True story.

[Twisted Tenon]

Here's (http://www.smh.com.au/national/water-diviners-dowsers-may-have-special-sensitivity-to-electromagnetism-20141227-12cpvm.html) a different perspective the subject.

TT

[rustynail]

This is a true story.....

In 1954 my dear old Dad bought two adjacent blocks of land on the Mornington Peninsular. The land was near the back beach at Rye Victoria and in those days there was no water, no electricity.......just a dirt track road to this bit of bush. He built a modest holiday home on one block and we got water from a corrugated iron water tank. My mother wanted to cultivate a garden but without water this was a forlorn exercise.
Dad was told about a local guru who claimed he could X mark the spot so he arrived with a forked stick and began the long walk around the block. He duly stopped at a point and said to dig here and you will find water.
My father started the dig and my older brothers helped. After the first six feet Dad shored up the hole and then continued and after a second shore up and then a hand auger he had to admit defeat. No water, just the same sandy soil that is the Peninsular. The exercise was not entirely futile..
Never one to despair, Dad did not fill in the hole. He had a light bulb moment and just moved the outdoor Dunny over the hole and as I recall, when you went for a dump you could count to seven or eight before you heard the thud...True story.
That makes perfect sense. Sandy soil, requiring shoring at six foot intervals, would be very hard to divine.
Back in the old days they didnt seem to take ground hardness into account. It was probably preferred to find a reading in soft ground as wells were dug by hand. My experience has shown that soft or loose ground
gives a very unreliable signal. Sand nearly drives me nuts. Ironstone country is probably the best, followed by granite and quartz.

[Master Splinter]

Here's (http://www.smh.com.au/national/water-diviners-dowsers-may-have-special-sensitivity-to-electromagnetism-20141227-12cpvm.html) a different perspective the subject.

TT

That's actually not CSIRO's thoughts, thats a piece in the SMH written by a person purporting to be a water diviner right around the date that "The Water Diviner" film was released. I suspect it is a made up piece supplied to newspaper outlets as part of the publicity for the film.

The CSIRO get a brief mention in the final paragraph - "The mystery could be solved by CSIRO research, which investigated old bush yarns about gold growing on trees. "

However, CSIRO research would have to use the same 'flawed' scientific tests that have failed to find any dowsing ability in people to date, and we'd have to rely on anecdotal evidence...

Interestingly, the Liberal Party's newly appointed head of the CSIRO, entrepreneur, venture capitalist and possibly Australia's most gullible scientician, Dr Larry Marshall, thinks 'there could be something in water divining'. It's good to see that Australia is getting a good start to be the first country in the world to reach peak stupid!

[Master Splinter]

Now that tiger repelling rock...

While I'd love to check my rock out with the test you propose, I think it wouldn't work properly around the tigers at Toronga Park, as those tigers are not natural, in-the-wild tigers, they are all captive and have been around humans for many years - and captive tigers really confuse the tiger-repelling-rock's ability to repel, as they are not in their natural state.

However, as I have seen absolutely no tigers around my house since I have had the rock, I am utterly convinced of its action and value. A few friends/relatives of mine have not seen tigers around their houses either, and are also convinced by how well the rock must be working.

As for divining tests, what about the Water Board records, which simply recorded the number of wells sunk, method of location, and success or failure of the bore?

Those weren't tests, they were just pure records of how the drilling location was decided, and the result of the bore.

Those results were uncontaminated by any artificial test environment - it was just 'drill here' and 'water/no water' results.

[Twisted Tenon]

That's actually not CSIRO's thoughts, thats a piece in the SMH written by a person purporting to be a water diviner right around the date that "The Water Diviner" film was released. I suspect it is a made up piece supplied to newspaper outlets as part of the publicity for the film.

The CSIRO get a brief mention in the final paragraph - "The mystery could be solved by CSIRO research, which investigated old bush yarns about gold growing on trees. "

However, CSIRO research would have to use the same 'flawed' scientific tests that have failed to find any dowsing ability in people to date, and we'd have to rely on anecdotal evidence...

Interestingly, the Liberal Party's newly appointed head of the CSIRO, entrepreneur, venture capitalist and possibly Australia's most gullible scientician, Dr Larry Marshall, thinks 'there could be something in water divining'. It's good to see that Australia is getting a good start to be the first country in the world to reach peak stupid!

Hi MS
Just to clarify, Jan Mayman doesn't purport to be a diviner she claims she is. She is also a Gold Walkley (http://www.icij.org/journalists/jan-mayman)Award winner and has some cred as an investigative journalist. I reackon your right that this piece was influenced by the movie. It's a topical subject. Dr Larry Marshal (http://www.bsi.com.au/larry-marshall.html)is as you say a successful entrepreneur. I think he is keeping an open mind and was accurately quoted by Mayman. Mayman may be referring to an interview Marshal did for ABC Rural in October 2014. He coped a shellahttp://oncirculation.com/2015/01/07/pushing-an-empty-envelope/#commentscking for it. Marshal seems to think that flowing water may send out electromagnetic fields which are picked up by the diviner. He is supported in this by Professor Phillip Jennings (http://profiles.murdoch.edu.au/myprofile/philip-jennings/)

There are a lot of anecdotes about Dousing being posted, but there a quite a few people on this thread who claim to be doing it. I'm happy to wait for conclusive proof one way or the other. I do think the Dick Smith test is too artificial and not a true test. I thought so when they set it up in 1980. I think we need something like the Sceptics Society because there are a lot of duds out there. My thoughts are if you pay for a dowser to come to your property to find water and they do, it's money well spent. Surely they don't accept the money if they fail to find the water?

TT

[wireliner]

I have heard about the EM theory as to why divining works and it kind of makes sense. As I have said, I only find where the water is moving the quickest. Pipelines are easy because they are shallow. Metal lines are easy to find, even if there is no flow. Maybe the metal holds the charge??? PVC and poly lines are not as reactive to me but I can still find them. The simple fact is that divining does work for some people. I'm sure there are charlatans out there but many are not. Further more to the EM theory, maybe that's why I can't wear a watch. My parents gave up trying when I was in school. They always died within days on me. Even the non battery powered ones.

[rustynail]

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of travelling to Kulnura on the central coast of NSW to pick up an orchard slasher I had purchased on Gumtree. While talking to the farmer, we managed to get onto the subject of water divining. He informed me that when they purchased the property, about eleven years ago, they made quite a few attempts at drilling for water. Unsuccessfully. A local diviner offered his services. The farmer thought, "why not?" The resulting bore continues to supply good water to the property.
Yes, I know - anecdotal, good luck, sheer chance. But the fact remains, where the wires swung in there was water.
I have faith in my ability to find water. I am not so sure about the gentleman offering pet rocks for sale. I think we may have found our charlatan.

[rustynail]

I have heard about the EM theory as to why divining works and it kind of makes sense. As I have said, I only find where the water is moving the quickest. Pipelines are easy because they are shallow. Metal lines are easy to find, even if there is no flow. Maybe the metal holds the charge??? PVC and poly lines are not as reactive to me but I can still find them. The simple fact is that divining does work for some people. I'm sure there are charlatans out there but many are not. Further more to the EM theory, maybe that's why I can't wear a watch. My parents gave up trying when I was in school. They always died within days on me. Even the non battery powered ones.
A lady school teacher I introduced to divining and went on to be very good at it, was like you and unable to wear a watch. Personally, I dont have any issue.

[Twisted Tenon]

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of travelling to Kulnura on the central coast of NSW to pick up an orchard slasher I had purchased on Gumtree. While talking to the farmer, we managed to get onto the subject of water divining. He informed me that when they purchased the property, about eleven years ago, they made quite a few attempts at drilling for water. Unsuccessfully. A local diviner offered his services. The farmer thought, "why not?" The resulting bore continues to supply good water to the property.
Yes, I know - anecdotal, good luck, sheer chance. But the fact remains, where the wires swung in there was water.
I have faith in my ability to find water. I am not so sure about the gentleman offering pet rocks for sale. I think we may have found our charlatan.

There's lots of interesting water up around there Rusty Nail. They reackon it comes through from the Blue Mountains. Coca Cola have a water bottling plant up there. The water seems to follow channels in the sand stone. Well that's what a couple of locals tell me. Which may account for why the water is selective as to where it surfaces.

TT

[rustynail]

While I'd love to check my rock out with the test you propose, I think it wouldn't work properly around the tigers at Toronga Park, as those tigers are not natural, in-the-wild tigers, they are all captive and have been around humans for many years - and captive tigers really confuse the tiger-repelling-rock's ability to repel, as they are not in their natural state.

However, as I have seen absolutely no tigers around my house since I have had the rock, I am utterly convinced of its action and value. A few friends/relatives of mine have not seen tigers around their houses either, and are also convinced by how well the rock must be working.

As for divining tests, what about the Water Board records, which simply recorded the number of wells sunk, method of location, and success or failure of the bore?

Those weren't tests, they were just pure records of how the drilling location was decided, and the result of the bore.

Those results were uncontaminated by any artificial test environment - it was just 'drill here' and 'water/no water' results.
Oh, so you're an expert on tigers as well?

[wireliner]

A lady school teacher I introduced to divining and went on to be very good at it, was like you and unable to wear a watch. Personally, I dont have any issue.


Very interesting. I'm not alone then!

[rustynail]

There's lots of interesting water up around there Rusty Nail. They reackon it comes through from the Blue Mountains. Coca Cola have a water bottling plant up there. The water seems to follow channels in the sand stone. Well that's what a couple of locals tell me. Which may account for why the water is selective as to where it surfaces.

TT
Sandstone usually produces good water. Yes the aquifers are often quite narrow, which makes for interesting divining as they can easily be overlooked or missed. If the sandstone is under a layer of shale the water is often salty. Sometimes you can be lucky and find the salt diminishes as the bore is pumped. Also the presence of shale in the bore can give a false indication of salt on initial proving of the bore as the water is being forced up by air and is in direct contact with wall of the bore. This is eliminated once a casing and pipe line direct from the pump are installed.

[Master Splinter]

Oh, so you're an expert on tigers as well?

No, I'm an expert on my tiger repelling rock. It's the same tiger repelling rock that Lisa Simpson used in The Simpsons episode 'Much Apu About Nothing'

Homer: Well, there's not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is sure doing its job.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, sweetie.
Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers.
Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: I see.
Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.

See also: http://www.getelastic.com/lisa-simpson-gets-why-correlation-does-not-imply-causation/

[Greg Ward]

The study of science in its many disciplines is quite difficult. Many use their 'common sense' to make sense of the world, not a 3-5 years intensive university study, so communicating between those with knowledge and those with belief is a major problem.

My wife seriously believes that a close friend of hers astral travels. My smart a... comments that it must save on airfares falls very flat, so we don't go there any more.

There are many who seriously believe vaccination is evil and some global plot, those who think fluoride is a monster element and those who believe that the moon landings were a CIA fraud. And the internet allows anyone with basic computer skills to find like minded believers to reinforce their beliefs.

So why is there such a gap between knowledge and belief?

Part of the problem is that scientists are poor communicators, (as are many politicians).
Charismatic leaders who can communicate are rare and usually end up in the exotic spectrum.

We hate being hectored, (it all started with mum), we hate being lectured to, we don't like smart people (unless they be doctors and our health is an issue), we don't like being spoken down to and as we age, our prejudices and beliefs become stronger and we are less likely to listen.

Take climate change. Most of us accept that climate change is a real possibility, but as to it being the most serious matter affecting mankind........, we basically say " tell that to the Syrians or the Tibetans", then as we listen to the condescending zealots who tell us, the 'great unwashed', how stupid we are...... we say "get stuffed" and we revel in our dismissal of their thinking.

Sceptics also suffer from zealotry, they preach to the converted and haven't yet worked out how to sell, not preach.

Communication and education is the only way forward.

This matter of water divination ('divine' is a separate subject) is not a life threatening matter, so we can have a general discussion to no real end....., but there are serious matters of life and death where knowledge and belief are combatants.......

So what?

Please use reputable bodies such as the CSIRO or universities to guide your thinking. don't be lazy in research, don't accept those with similar thinking on the internet as wise, consider the thoughts of others, use scientific knowledge to assist and if you want to use your common sense..... fine, but also be a little wary of your own conclusions and be prepared to accept you may be wrong.


Damn...... now I'm preaching as well......

Regards


Greg

[rustynail]

Greg, I could not agree with you more. Only one point I would make; in some cases finding or not finding water has been life threatening. Or if you like, lifestyle threatening. Where without water people and livestock could not continue to function.

[rustynail]

No, I'm an expert on my tiger repelling rock. It's the same tiger repelling rock that Lisa Simpson used in The Simpsons episode 'Much Apu About Nothing'

Homer: Well, there's not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is sure doing its job.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, sweetie.
Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers.
Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: I see.
Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.

See also: http://www.getelastic.com/lisa-simpson-gets-why-correlation-does-not-imply-causation/
So now you are telling me this rock you have has celebrity appeal as it belonged to Lisa Simpson - an animated cartoon character?
Who's delusional?

[snowyskiesau]

Apparently when you're given the 'gift' of water divining, you lose your sense of humour :)

[rustynail]

Apparently when you're given the 'gift' of water divining, you lose your sense of humour :)
Quite the contrary. I have had many a good laugh at things I find amusing. There has been no indication that our friend was making a joke other than the subject content.
The gift of water divining does not negate ones sense of humour What does negate a sense of humour is some one who is prepared to ridicule that about which they know nothing or at best very little. Who is to say that my responses to this amazing piece of mirth was not just as much tongue in cheek.
Some people seem to have an astounding propensity to jump to conclusions.

[Superbunny]

You know what, I was a Geoengineer in NZ for 10 years and I worked with well drillers over that time. We covered the Canterbury region and I noticed two things, 1. The well drillers had drilled more dry wells that water diviners had said there was water and they did not believe in it and this from a second generation company that had been at it for 40 odd years and 2. where there is plenty of water to be found farmers believed in it but did not if it was hard to find. I had a very interesting conversation with a farmer who had a 300 metre well that was dry and we were both looking at it at the time and it was not the first one he has either. He had spent nearly $1,000,000 on trying to get water on his farm for irrigation back in 1993. He said he would shoot the next water diviner that came onto his property. I also met a diviner with books and newspaper articles about his success, but I noticed he had written them or self promoted himself, so much for independent confirmation of his skill in an area that had more water than you could poke a stick at. In areas where I knew there was water because of all the well logs I had access to and I knew how much and at what depth the water is at, I would say to the farmer, give me a rock and I'll throw it and where it lands drill there. You know what, not one single failure. Randi proved once and for all it is BS with his demo some years ago and that should be the last word on the matter apart from the fact Randi still has his money.

SB

[rustynail]

A person who says there is water and there is none is not a water diviner.
The tests that have been conducted have not been conclusive, other than to prove that unnatural water sauces are, at best, chance. And the vagaries don't end there.
Here is an example; Some years ago I was asked to have a 'look' in a particular paddock. There were three good locations found. One was drilled and good water was forthcoming. The other spots were disregarded.
Some years later I was asked to relocate the other spots. Upon arrival I found the paddock had been deep cultivated very recently. I could not find the other two locations even though I had a fair idea where they had been. In time, I will go back and see what happens
To suggest the tests conducted by Randi to being scientific evidence is incorrect. It would be much more reasonable to refer to them as an attempt at determining the unknown.
It would be funny if the next water diviner that came onto the Kiwi's property was a fairdinkum one.

[Superbunny]

Yep rustynail, and Randi has his money waiting for a real water diviner, funny no one has claimed it. I was always ready to be convinced by a real diviner but out of all the ones I met, I and the well drillers we were left underwhelmed by their evidence but positive of the dry wells they divined. I did notice when in some areas when divining was discussed by a farmer or two, they would tell me of the failed divining attempts that the local diviners never tell you about, funny that. I can assure all if I or the drillers had found any better evidence for divining I would be glad to support it but only if the moon was right, or time of day/year, or the wind was from a certain direction, or I was holding my mouth right.:D:D

SB

[Master Splinter]

The thing is that all those failed dowsers confirmed (and demonstrated) that their dowsing ability was working under the test conditions, before commencing the test proper.

What stopped their ability to dowse the minute they were under test protocol?

And it doesn't explain the poor performance of 'in the field' tests, where dowsing shows no better success rate than random chance.

[rustynail]

I have always said, when I fail to find water I will stop divining. I haven't failed yet. But on the strength of what you guys are suggesting it shouldn't be too long now.
I'm afraid you are going to have to come up with a better reason for why the wires cross other than the accusation the operator causes it. I know for a fact, in my case, that is not correct. As stated earlier , I will do my best to prevent the wires moving. But still they do. And low and behold there is water when its drilled!
It don't get much better than that.
Opinions mean nothing. Prizes mean nothing. Man made tests mean nothing. So called diviners mean nothing. Ability and continuity are everything. When that fails, you too are nothing.

[wireliner]

I found a water meter for a friend yesterday. He bought on of those new estate homes you get now days. The landscapers had buried it under dirt and mulch. He had scratched around trying to find it using the other homes as a guide. I found the thing easily. Why they put it halfway up his front yard is beyond me. All the others are on the fence line.

[Master Splinter]

As you two must be the only actual 'real' diviners in the world, again I encourage you to go for the various sceptic prizes posted earlier.

Surely, that's an easy $1.2 million for such proven dowsers as yourselves (adjusted for conversion rates).

Feel free to nominate test conditions that would work for your ability set.

I'll say that again, you are able to nominate test conditions that best show your ability.

If pipes won't work for you, if an open field wont work for you (remember, you will be asked to check that your ability works under test conditions before testing starts), come up with some other testing procedure.

And you'd be able to prove, once and for all, to the whole world, that it works.

[rustynail]

As you two must be the only actual 'real' diviners in the world, again I encourage you to go for the various sceptic prizes posted earlier.

Surely, that's an easy $1.2 million for such proven dowsers as yourselves (adjusted for conversion rates).

Feel free to nominate test conditions that would work for your ability set.

I'll say that again, you are able to nominate test conditions that best show your ability.

If pipes won't work for you, if an open field wont work for you (remember, you will be asked to check that your ability works under test conditions before testing starts), come up with some other testing procedure.

And you'd be able to prove, once and for all, to the whole world, that it works.
A couple of points here; Firstly I do not profess to be one of only two. I have met many successful diviners over the years. I have also met many failures.
Secondly, I am not of the opinion that a ready made, slap up 'test' is going to prove anything, other than the vagaries of such conditions.
Thirdly, I would not be presumptuous enough to say that I would know what was required to set up a suitable 'test.'
To be honest, I'm not interested in Randi's money. I have enough of my own. I do not do what I do for the need to prove to the world that it works. In fact, I rather like the idea of a little bit of mystery in the mix -
helps to keep us humble.
Dont worry, you are not the first to cast doubt on the subject and Im sure you wont be the last. I understand perfectly why anybody unable to get those wires moving would have reason to doubt. But that still doesnt explain why the wires move for others. Many are the doubters I have shown and from those some have been able to do it. Others have not been so fortunate and continue, justifiably, to be of the opinion that its all BS. Like our Kiwi friend.
The way I see it, we are guided by our past experiences. Or at least we should be. I dont need the opinion of Mr Randi anymore than he is in the need of mine (feel free to substitute your own name.) I too am a skeptical person by nature. Im sure that if I was not able to do what I do I would share your veiw. Probably not as dogmatically as I am not a dismissive person. I prefer to keep an open mind. But hey, each to his own.
In all of this, you have never said if you have tried and failed or never tried at all.

[Master Splinter]

So, essentially what you are saying is that:

- the only measure of a water diviner is for a purported water diviner to declare his or her own success at it, and that it is impossible to test divining in a scientific manner.

OR

- every single dowser tested to date (and worldwide, I'm sure that would be many thousands of them) was a fake, and no 'real' diviners have been tested.

Remember, all the tests have buy-in from diviners, saying "Yes, I can accurately divine in test conditions" (and they are then asked to demonstrate their divining before the test begins).

Yet once the test begins, their success rate drops to random chance (and yes, their divining rod still deflects or whatever it is that it does, it's just that it doesn't necessarily correlate with water)

And we have wireliner, who started this thread, declaring his success at finding a newly installed water meter, so surely he'd be able to pass a Dick Smith like test with flying colours.

[rustynail]

So, essentially what you are saying is that:

- the only measure of a water diviner is for a purported water diviner to declare his or her own success at it, and that it is impossible to test divining in a scientific manner.

OR

- every single dowser tested to date (and worldwide, I'm sure that would be many thousands of them) was a fake, and no 'real' diviners have been tested.

Remember, all the tests have buy-in from diviners, saying "Yes, I can accurately divine in test conditions" (and they are then asked to demonstrate their divining before the test begins).

Yet once the test begins, their success rate drops to random chance (and yes, their divining rod still deflects or whatever it is that it does, it's just that it doesn't necessarily correlate with water)

And we have wireliner, who started this thread, declaring his success at finding a newly installed water meter, so surely he'd be able to pass a Dick Smith like test with flying colours.
Not at all. Read the posts and you will see what I am saying. Whether you choose to accept what I have posted as being my stand on the topic is of little interest to me. You are obviously of the opinion that my take on the testing that has been undertaken so far as unsatisfactory is incorrect, inferring that my only reason for declining to undertake the tests is because Im afraid of the results. Well your damn right on that score, but not for the reasons you think.
I draw your attention to my last paragraph in my last post. The answer may well shed some light.

[Master Splinter]

Well, I have to say it is something I have never tried.

But then, I've never:

- tried talking to spirits or angels
- tried seeing Jesus in a vision (or on a piece of toast),
- spoken in tongues while possessed by the holy spirit,
- spelled words on a ouija board,
- tried astral travel (which is a pity, as it might have sufficient leg room for me),
- bent spoons with my mind,
- tried psychic surgery,
- seen a ghost or vampire or space alien (in real life, anyway)
- had cancer that's been cured by ingesting silver, and,
- I've never had my horoscope done by an astrologer and found out that 'OMG it was so true!'

Why? Because all of these share one common element - they all have their very ardent believers, but none of them can provide any empirical proof of what they claim.

All of these are extraordinary claims; as such they require extraordinary proof.

If anything, the only thing that gets proven, time and again, is that people have an almost limitless ability to fool themselves.

Would I believe in dowsing?

Yes, in an instant, if someone could demonstrate that they could actually do it. That's all it takes - proof.

I'm always open to the possibility that dowsing is real phenomenon (just like I am open to the possibility that Nessie is real, and that Bigfoot is stomping around the US of A, probably hand-in-hand with Elvis), but all the available evidence to date indicates against it.

I don't think that requiring proof is a particularly high bar to set when I'm asked to believe in something.

[wireliner]

I tried to register but it won't load. Will you, Master Splinter, find somebody in Adelaide, put a carton of beer on it? Pale Ale is my choice.

[Master Splinter]

What won't load?

[wireliner]

The challenge but it did finally. I'm in... are you? Only a box of beer for you.

[elanjacobs]

Been watching this thread for a while, but talk of an actual test has me curious as to how you'd measure success.
Will someone be hiring a geologist/hydrologist to survey the site first? Will you need to find multiple water sources?

[Master Splinter]

Yep, pass the (I presume Australian Skeptics) challenge and when the successful result to the challenge is published in the Australian Skeptic magazine or website (or the successful challenge gains coverage in mainstream media) I will happily shout you not one, but two cartons of Pale Ale.

Ten cartons if you pass the million dollar challenge after that!

[wireliner]

The real challenge is entering. They seem to make it hard. But I'll enjoy that beer.

[Superbunny]

Ten cartons if you pass the million dollar challenge after that!

and I'll put in another 10 as well, it's the least I can do if I'm proven wrong.:D:D

SB

[Master Splinter]

Been watching this thread for a while, but talk of an actual test has me curious as to how you'd measure success.
Will someone be hiring a geologist/hydrologist to survey the site first? Will you need to find multiple water sources?

Generally, it's up to the challenger to propose a test protocol, depending on the nature of their claim.

The challenger might say "I can reliably locate the best place to drill for water eight out of ten times - test me by letting me divine ten good points in a 200x200 meter area, blindfold me, then I will walk that area again and I will again divine eight out of ten of those exact same areas to within half-meter accuracy"

Or they might say that they can divine filled two litre bottles of water hidden under a bucket with 100% accuracy - in which case they might have to successfully locate the one filled bottle that's under one of ten buckets in a set of three or four tests.

Or they might be able to walk across a suburban area and indicate where all the underground water utilities are.

Or they might say that they can look at an unlabelled map and point to locations of existing water bores of over X litres a minute capacity, or look at a map with no topographic features and sketch out surface water courses, or be able to indicate on a map if an existing bore is supplying fresh or salty water.

Here's what they did in 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQVPkrIipV0

[elanjacobs]

Generally, it's up to the challenger to propose a test protocol, depending on the nature of their claim.

The challenger might say "I can reliably locate the best place to drill for water eight out of ten times - test me by letting me divine ten good points in a 200x200 meter area, blindfold me, then I will walk that area again and I will again divine eight out of ten of those exact same areas to within half-meter accuracy"

Or they might say that they can divine filled two litre bottles of water hidden under a bucket with 100% accuracy - in which case they might have to successfully locate the one filled bottle that's under one of ten buckets in a set of three or four tests.

Or they might be able to walk across a suburban area and indicate where all the underground water utilities are.

Or they might say that they can look at an unlabelled map and point to locations of existing water bores of over X litres a minute capacity, or look at a map with no topographic features and sketch out surface water courses, or be able to indicate on a map if an existing bore is supplying fresh or salty water.

Here's what they did in 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQVPkrIipV0
Ok that makes sense.
Only problem I have with the 10 points in a given area would be that a large portion of that area might be one big aquifer. Personally I would think that that kind of test would need to be verified by some sort of scientist. If if the test area turns out to be 70% aquifer anyway you might as well throw darts around and dig where they land.

That's my 2c anyway.

[wireliner]

All I can do is find water that is moving or has been moving, that is in a pipeline. Nothing more or less. I can't find a buried barrel. Why people think that an aquifer is a lake underground is beyond me. Same with oil and gas...it moves. It is called migration.

[Master Splinter]

With that sort of test (which has actually been done), they are saying that they can indicate on the same spots again - basically it's a test of the repeatability of their dowsing.

There are also tests where the dowser's indicated points are marked on the ground, and the dowser has to then re-indicate over them, but unknown to the dowser, the points get moved before the second set of indications. They are very good at indicating again over the marked (but moved) points.

See also:
Lovibond SR (1952). The water diviner's frame of reference. Australian Journal of Psychology 4, 62-73
Ongley PA (1948). New Zealand diviners. New Zealand Journal of Science and Technology Section B, 30, 38-54
Dale LA et al (1951). Dowsing: a field experiment in water divining. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 45, 3-16
Foulkes RA (1971). Dowsing experiments. Nature 229, 163-168
Lovibond SR (1952). The water diviner's frame of reference. Australian Journal of Psychology 4, 62-73

[kiwigeo]

All I can do is find water that is moving or has been moving, that is in a pipeline. Nothing more or less. I can't find a buried barrel. Why people think that an aquifer is a lake underground is beyond me. Same with oil and gas...it moves. It is called migration.

Oil and gas are generally only moving in reservoir that is in production. As hydrocarbons are removed from a reservoir, fluid moves in to takes it's place. In a reservoir that hasn't been produced this doesn't happen.

[steamingbill]

On the general theme of local geology and finding water, the State and Federal Governments have made a huge effort to place online a lot of historical information from boreholes and geological exploration, geophysical surveys, and mapping in order to aid exploration companies. Many farmers and others do not realise how readily available this information is or how useful it could be. Googling reveals some astonishing resources that are freely available to the general public.

http://www.ga.gov.au/
http://www.vvg.org.au/cb_pages/gedis.php
http://www.energyandresources.vic.gov.au/earth-resources/maps-reports-and-data/geovic


Other states may have done the same.

Some of the sites I have visited also carry information and statistics regarding suitability for Wind and Solar power generation as well as water levels in bores, borelogs, estimates of landslip probability, locations of bores, water quality analysis, locations of landslide prone areas etc. etc. etc.. You can often draw a polygon on the website's maps to specify the area you are interested in. Other sites have links to gazetted land parcels so that you can call up the outline of your property on top of the available geological information - see snippett below called land parcels.

Well worth a look if you are interested in finding out a bit more about your local area. In Victoria this effort has been well publicised in the Mining and Exploration industry but I get the impression few other people know what is easily available. Some samples of output are shown below.

Some data sets are too large to download and are available as DVD data packs and are easily requested.

In Victoria the Catchment Management Authorities can also have useful websites and so do some Landcare groups.

http://www.wgcma.vic.gov.au/

There are a couple of sites that I visited have 3d geological models as 3d pdf files that are downloadable - quite interesting.

Bill

[rustynail]

Well, I have to say it is something I have never tried.

But then, I've never:

- tried talking to spirits or angels
- tried seeing Jesus in a vision (or on a piece of toast),
- spoken in tongues while possessed by the holy spirit,
- spelled words on a ouija board,
- tried astral travel (which is a pity, as it might have sufficient leg room for me),
- bent spoons with my mind,
- tried psychic surgery,
- seen a ghost or vampire or space alien (in real life, anyway)
- had cancer that's been cured by ingesting silver, and,
- I've never had my horoscope done by an astrologer and found out that 'OMG it was so true!'

Why? Because all of these share one common element - they all have their very ardent believers, but none of them can provide any empirical proof of what they claim.

All of these are extraordinary claims; as such they require extraordinary proof.

If anything, the only thing that gets proven, time and again, is that people have an almost limitless ability to fool themselves.

Would I believe in dowsing?

Yes, in an instant, if someone could demonstrate that they could actually do it. That's all it takes - proof.

I'm always open to the possibility that dowsing is real phenomenon (just like I am open to the possibility that Nessie is real, and that Bigfoot is stomping around the US of A, probably hand-in-hand with Elvis), but all the available evidence to date indicates against it.

I don't think that requiring proof is a particularly high bar to set when I'm asked to believe in something.
Well how about that. We must be twins. I have never done any of those either.
If you would like to have a go, to see what happens, I would be happy to oblige. As for relocating a given spot, that's no problem, its part of the divining process. Or at least should be. I would be happy to demonstrate that as well. In this age of modern technology it isn't hard to pin point a location using coordinates.
I agree, the requirement of proof to believe in something is reasonable. The fact that you have not found suitable proof is reasonable grounds for doubt. But it doesnt give the right to judge others, only the right to judge oneself.
As the old saying goes; It is better to have tried and failed than to have never tried at all.
We have never met. I am being judged on the performance of others. You have never even tried. Sounds a bit rough wouldnt you think?

[Master Splinter]

So it's better to ignore the results of thousands of tests on hundreds and hundreds of people over the last 60 or so years because 'it might still be true'?

The probability - after all those tests, of all those people who were so sure, so positive that they had the ability and were shown to be wrong - is vanishingly small.

How small? Surprisingly small. I'll dust off my creaky knowledge of stats...

Lets make the guestimate that 200 dowsers in Australia have been tested (and failed) for dowsing ability. What are the odds of this happening by chance?

For this, we'll assume that a goodly number of people in that 200 are put off by the test conditions, and can't perform as they usually do. We're also taking that the test results are binomial (can dowse/can't dowse).

We'll say that out of those 200 dowsers, we'll only expect 75 of them to be able to dowse properly during the test. So we're expecting less than half of them to be able to perform as claimed.

So what's the probability of those 75 dowsers out of 200 all failing by some particular random circumstance (ie hands too sweaty/Jupiter in Uranus/God thinks it's a good joke to pull/water too pure/sand not dry enough and so on)?

The probability that all 75 dowsers all suffered from some random failure at test time is less than 0.0002%

Lets take this one step further; assume that there have been a total of 3,000 people tested worldwide for dowsing ability; lets further assume that no more than one in ten of these people can actually perform under test conditions - so we are only looking for 300 actual dowsers out of these 3,000 claimed dowsers.

What's the probability of every single one of those 300 dowsers out of 3000 failing their test due to some random event?

6.9x10^-482 percent.

That's a 6 with 481 zeros in front of it. That's considerably worse odds than marking 7 numbers on a phone book* sized lotto card and expecting to win.

That's why I don't think dowsing works.

But if you are happy to demonstrate, by all means contact the Australian Skeptics and demonstrate. If you don't want the cash prize, it can go to your preferred charity.


*New York phone book, all volumes...

[elanjacobs]

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/testing_dowsing_the_failure_of_the_munich_experiments/
Possibly the largest scientific test ever done on the subject. 500 whittled down to the best 43 with a budget of $250,000 (hell of a lot of money in 1986). Warning : It's a long read

http://www.undeceivingourselves.org/S-divi.htm
And another one. In one of the tests they actually drilled at each point marked by diviners and at 16 marked by a hydrogeologist. They measured depth and flow rate. No prizes for guessing the results

[AlexS]

As per Steamingbill's post, surface, NSW groundwater and borehole data are available from NSW Waterinfo (http://waterinfo.nsw.gov.au/gw/).

Not that I'm at all cynical, but if I wanted to make people think I was a good diviner, the first thing I'd do is have a look at these sites. The mechanics of making a forked stick or wire 'twitch' without apparent input from the operator are well documented.

Not that I'm at all cynical, of course...

[rustynail]

One problem....It hasn't failed me yet.
What others have done or not done is of little consequence to me. I have said that I understand the incapable to be doubters. I have no problem with that. I understand that kept data shows that chance is probably the answer. But as sensible as all that may seem, I still have over 40years of experience seeing others in operation and doing it myself. What am I supposed to do with that?
Read through some of those anecdotes I have mentioned earlier, keep an open mind and see what you come up with? Maybe Im missing something. I do know for a fact, when the wires turn for me there will be water, there always has. Sorry if that doesnt suit statistics, but that is just what happens.
Should you ever have the need for water and conditions are suitable, dont hesitate to give me a call.

[Grumpy John]

Both sides need to read this article ...........................


Arguments that appeal to ignorance rely merely on the fact that the veracity of the proposition is not disproven to arrive at a definite conclusion. These arguments fail to appreciate that the limits of one's understanding or certainty do not change what is true. They do not inform upon reality. That is, whatever the reality is, it does not "wait" upon human logic or analysis to be formulated. Reality exists at all times, and it exists independently of what is in the mind of anyone. And the true thrust of science and rational analysis is to separate preconceived notion(s) of what reality is, and to be open at all times to the observation of nature as it behaves, so as truly to discover reality. This fallacy can be very convincing and is considered by some to be a special case of a false dilemma or false dichotomy in that they both fail to consider alternatives. A false dilemma may take the form:

If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.
If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.

Most often it is directed at any conclusion derived from null results in an experiment or from the non-detection of something. In other words, where one researcher may say their experiment suggests evidence of absence, another researcher might argue that the experiment failed to detect a phenomenon for other reasons.


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


.............................. and then need to agree to disagree. :D

[elanjacobs]

While it's true that our lack of understanding of the way things work doesn't change their existence, the failure of hundreds of people in dozens of controlled tests to deliver better results than a random number generator should be telling us something.

[Twisted Tenon]

Both sides need to read this article ...........................

.............................. and then need to agree to disagree. :D

Works for me :D

TT

[Master Splinter]

What do you expect to get when you start a thread with the first line:

"Water divining. A science or a load of rubbish?"

As early as 1917 the US Geological Survey people said "A load of rubbish"

Nothing has happened since then to prove otherwise.

[rustynail]

While it's true that our lack of understanding of the way things work doesn't change their existence, the failure of hundreds of people in dozens of controlled tests to deliver better results than a random number generator should be telling us something.
I think the nature of the tests is what seems to cause the problem. In most cases it is easy to find a fault with the methodology, which in turn, is going to produce less than convincing results.
As we dont understand exactly what it is we are working with, it makes it difficult to establish a test that will accommodate all the vagaries of the process.
In all the tests I have read up on, there have been anomalies that, to me, render the tests a waste of time.
This of cause could be seen as just an excuse not to participate, but in fact, if those same conditions were found in the field, I would be telling my client that I cant help them.
The key word to me is controlled. This is where it seems to come unstuck.
There are a few common denominators when it comes to water divining; Water must be moving. The older the better. The more solid the strata the better. The diviner must be competent (one hit wonders are two bob a dozen.)
When these factors are taken into account it becomes a little clearer why testing to date has been less than successful.
My personal method of testing is each and every time I detect water there is water. The doubters say but there is water everywhere. Not so. If it were so, any well, anywhere, would be productive.
The doubters say the diviners cant refind a location. If they are any good they can. This would be the first test I would put on any diviner. If they can not find the spot they are not diviners. I draw attention to my anecdote about the blind Aboriginal chap in an earlier post.
Do I have an explanation? I do not. I have my suspicions and theories formed over many years. Nothing conclusive, other than ongoing success and for that reason I keep on.

[Grumpy John]

Not dowsing, but let me throw this into the mix:


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1111_031111_earthquakeanimals.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3009448/Animals-predict-earthquakes-Scientists-film-behavioural-changes-seismic-activity-increases.html

[Twisted Tenon]

Not dowsing, but let me throw this into the mix:


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1111_031111_earthquakeanimals.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3009448/Animals-predict-earthquakes-Scientists-film-behavioural-changes-seismic-activity-increases.html

There is more to this sort of stuff than we know. Sure you are going to get the inevitable "Yeah but, Nah but, what about the stats but". But if scientists don't keep an open mind they'll miss the important discoveries. Think Alexander Fleming and the discovery of penicillin. I'm happy to keep an open mind.

On a similar note, the Global Warming debate grinds on with both sides "quoting" the science. I know what I believe, but the impetus for this belief is based on personal observation.

TT

[rustynail]

What do you expect to get when you start a thread with the first line:

"Water divining. A science or a load of rubbish?"

As early as 1917 the US Geological Survey people said "A load of rubbish"

Nothing has happened since then to prove otherwise.

Yet I keep finding water.

[elanjacobs]

I think the nature of the tests is what seems to cause the problem. In most cases it is easy to find a fault with the methodology, which in turn, is going to produce less than convincing results.
As we dont understand exactly what it is we are working with, it makes it difficult to establish a test that will accommodate all the vagaries of the process.
In all the tests I have read up on, there have been anomalies that, to me, render the tests a waste of time.
This of cause could be seen as just an excuse not to participate, but in fact, if those same conditions were found in the field, I would be telling my client that I cant help them.
The key word to me is controlled. This is where it seems to come unstuck.
There are a few common denominators when it comes to water divining; Water must be moving. The older the better. The more solid the strata the better. The diviner must be competent (one hit wonders are two bob a dozen.)
When these factors are taken into account it becomes a little clearer why testing to date has been less than successful.
My personal method of testing is each and every time I detect water there is water. The doubters say but there is water everywhere. Not so. If it were so, any well, anywhere, would be productive.
The doubters say the diviners cant refind a location. If they are any good they can. This would be the first test I would put on any diviner. If they can not find the spot they are not diviners. I draw attention to my anecdote about the blind Aboriginal chap in an earlier post.
Do I have an explanation? I do not. I have my suspicions and theories formed over many years. Nothing conclusive, other than ongoing success and for that reason I keep on.

Can you elaborate on what you think are flaws in the testing?
Also, in the majority of the tests, the diviners did NOT return to the same location twice.


Not dowsing, but let me throw this into the mix:


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1111_031111_earthquakeanimals.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3009448/Animals-predict-earthquakes-Scientists-film-behavioural-changes-seismic-activity-increases.html

Animals can also find north. And water (but usually at depths that are easy to dig to manually, not meters underground).

Some people innately know where north is (and they don't need to hold a stick and wait for it to show them where it is), this could be a remnant of a primal ability that many people have lost. The same could be said for the ability to find water. BUT, I refuse to believe that the use of sticks, wires or anything else has any effect.

The sub-concious mind is very powerful and you can fool yourself into believing a lot of things. If someone IS able to detect water through some remnant of a primitive ability then they should know where to dig instinctively, WITHOUT the need for sticks or wires. If they believe that the sticks help, the brain can make your hands twitch sub-consciously to 'notify' the concious mind. The sticks aren't telling you where the water is, they're the way the sub-concious mind (instinct) is made concious.

Again, until someone rocks up with credible, peer-reviewed evidence for its existence, dowsing is, at best, pseudo-science and must be treated as such.

[Grumpy John]

Just playing devil's advocate here. I don't have an opinion one way or the other about one's ability to find water as it has no direct impact on my life at the moment.


"Such a vast amount of empirical data that has been gathered under scientific conditions is hard to deny."

Click (http://www.spiritoday.com/telekinesis-psychokinesis/)


Must be true, there is scientific data to prove it. http://d1r5wj36adg1sk.cloudfront.net/images/smilies/standard/rolleyes.gif
(http://www.spiritoday.com/telekinesis-psychokinesis/)

Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics


(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics)