Water divining

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grumpy John

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

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

---

Works for me :D

TT

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...keanimals.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...increases.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grumpy John

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


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...keanimals.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Yet I keep finding water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rustynail

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grumpy John

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


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...keanimals.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...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.

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


Must be true, there is scientific data to prove it. http://d1r5wj36adg1sk.cloudfront.net...d/rolleyes.gif


Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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


Must be true, there is scientific data to prove it. http://d1r5wj36adg1sk.cloudfront.net...d/rolleyes.gif


Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics

---

Your psycho-kinesis link (aside from being on a site called "Spirit Today" which, I'm sure, is a respectable scientific authority) references a study that has been thoroughly dismantled by the scientific community.

Which side are you playing devil's advocate for?

To quote from the first sentence of that Wikipeida link:

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments."

Well, there's certainly no weak argument on the side of 'no such thing as dowsing'. The data is in; 100 years of tests, different methodologies, different groups and different experimenters. It doesn't exist.

Way stranger theories have been found to have powerful predictive power or to be an evidence backed explanation of the observable universe (quantum mechanics, continental drift, Cretaceous/Tertiary extinction event, big bang...), but not dowsing.

On the other hand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rustynail

The doubters say but there is water everywhere. Not so. If it were so, any well, anywhere, would be productive.

---

A few comments:

1. Anywhere there is rock or unconsolidated strata that has porosity then it is rare for water not to be present.
2. The absence of a water flow from a well doesn't automatically mean there is no water present.....there may be insufficient permeability within the rock to enable the water to flow into the bore. An analogous situation in the oi land gas game is where a well has to be stimulated (fracked) to get hydrocarbons to flow from the formation into the wellbore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elanjacobs

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.
As mentioned in previous posts, the disturbance of surface can be an issue. Water in plastic is also difficult.
There are many factors that can be detrimental to accurate assessment. These factors will also play a part in relocation difficulty.



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.
There is one problem with that theory; I would prefer to fail. That would discredit what I have experienced to date. So far no such luck.
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.

---

I dont feel the need to place things in categories. I dont feel the need to justify nor dispute. When I fail, Ill stop.

This thread reminds me of a character in New Zealand by the name of Ken Ring who maintains he can predict earthquakes by examining the phase of the moon and distance (apogee/perigee) between the earth and it's satellite. His predictions never mention a specific date or a specific location...just a +/- 1-2 week period and a general area.

He appears to be onto something until you look at a few facts:

1. In an average year New Zealand experiences over 10,000 quakes.
2. I can predict that The Canterbury/Marlborough area will experience an earthquake within the next week and have a 90% chance of being correct. Im not looking at phases of the moon or any other phenomenon....I'm just making a pure guess.