Codger_64
Moderator
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2004
- Messages
- 61,828
And yet... you keep posting in this thread. I detect something here. I'm not sure what it is or how deep it goes but....
Dowsing: Fact or Fiction?
- Thread starter bladerique
- Start date
And yet... you keep posting in this thread. I detect something here. I'm not sure what it is or how deep it goes but....
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2010
- Messages
- 330
This thread had already strayed far from the topic when I started reading it, but since it hasn't died yet I figure I'll ask an honest question about dowsing. Has any one who has had success with dowsing tried to dowse without any sort of aid? If dowsing works I have a hard time believing that the tools are actually an essential part, but rather are being used as some sort of focus.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2008
- Messages
- 5,421
I never dowsed before this thread. I used the forked stick . The dowser bends the sticks, applying energy to the stick, holds it a certain was and walks around. Eventually the stored energy is released. There is no outside force pulling on the stick. If the dowser walks around with a stick that is not bent and have stored energy the stick does nothing. I believe that most people who dowse using a y shaped stick know this. They just like to let people think that something magic is happening.
Preacher Man
Moderator
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2005
- Messages
- 4,404
Very well said.
Codger_64
Moderator
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2004
- Messages
- 61,828
No, I haven't tried it without using metal rods, either steel or copper. As I have stated, I don't know why they react the way they do, but they do react when I cross an object which is electromagnetic. Even my stereo speaker here on my desk. It diverts the needle on my compass too.
I've never tried using a forked stick. My grandfather used one and he used it to dig new wells on his farm. I don't remember much about it except that he always cut a fresh, new forked stick each time he dowsed. And that he preferred to use a fruit tree branch such as apple, peach, pear etc. Of course, as a kid, everything you don't understand is magic. Like when he blew smoke rings or carved a gee-haw or willow whistle.
Preacher Man
Moderator
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2005
- Messages
- 4,404
What I mean is that my world-view (any world-view for that matter) serves as a filter through which I judge reality and the statements of others. As such my own world-view can blind me to things I easily dismiss simply because they don't jive with whatever litmus test my world-view uses as a default. I think it is arrogant not to be willing to recognize that although we feel secure in our convictions, every world-view has blind-spots and prejudices. As a result, true intellectual honesty requires stepping out of our shoes and wearing the other guys' for a while before rendering judgment regarding reality to make sure we are not missing something self-evident to the other guy. This also helps us to better explain to the other guy why we think he is wrong in terms and ways he can better relate and understand.
Skepticism is not a world-view per se, although is more commonly used as a tool to understand the nature of knowledge by some world-views like Scientific Materialism. I'm not discing skepticism or critical thinking. I don't think no one has in this thread, unless it is assumed that critical thinking must always lead to anti-supernaturalism. Skepticism can be a healthy attitude, but when overdone it can be problematic. I agree that a little skepticism is a good tool when facing a survival situation; but if overdone it can be paralyzing.
I thought your point was that dowsing is not real, evidence of which is that no one has won the JREF price, and that anecdotal evidence is irrelevant in relation to dowsing. If I'm mistaken, please correct me.
Maybe I missed something, but I don't remember reading any posts claiming dowsing is the result of supernatural or occult influences. Most claim they do not understand it nor do they know how it works; simply that in their experience it has although not with 100% accuracy or 100% reliability. Again, if I'm mistaken, please correct me, but I got the impression that some, if not most of the individuals posting dowsing experiences were open to some of the natural-based explanations, like some level of sensitivity to magnetic or electromagnetic fields.
As for accuracy and reliability, psychological profiling and hypnotherapy don't work with 100% accuracy or 100% reliability neither. This is no proof that they are not real or trustworthy. This only proves that the standards of judgment used in physical sciences cannot be imposed on every facet of human knowledge. Different fields of knowledge require/demand different standards of judgment. I agree that the human mind is a powerful thing, and it goes beyond this since we don't fully understand it yet, nor do we know what would be the full potential of a human capable of using the full potential/power of the brain.
I do agree with you that lack of self knowledge and ignoring psychological factors and tendencies can lead to disastrous results in a survival situation. I believe that understanding survival psychology is essential not only for personal survival but to help lead a group facing an unforeseen survival situation.
I agree. There is some common ground here already. There is always time for some Monty Python or Spinal Tap.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,797
Preacher Man - I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your response...let me try to clarify without posting endless quotes.
My points ties back to post no. 1. I don't see any scientific evidence that witching is a valid method for locating anything. If anything, there is some evidence that points the other direction. My considerable personal experience (deviating from the original post for a second) with witching does not in any way support it's validity. I don't care a lick people whether or not people claim that dowsing is natural or supernatural...I just care if there's some valid evidence.
My comment about you "missing the point" was in reference to your comment that lack of scientific support for an event is not evidence or proof that the event is not real or that it is supernatural. Two things about that... First, I'll fall back on Sagan's quote..."Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The more extreme the claim the more powerful and compelling the evidence needs to be. The statement "Joe went to the store to pick up a pack of smokes" really doesn't require a bundle of compelling evidence because we know that there are people named Joe, who go to stores, and they buy smokes. The statement "Larry eats raw chicken heads and has conversations with the dead" falls outside the realm of our "ordinary" experience and knowledge and would require extraordinary evidence. Second, burden of proof lies on those making the claim. I could claim that Leroy the invisible purple gnome is sitting on my left shoulder. The proof is, of course, that it rains. Leroy causes rain...and you believe in rain...right? And yes, the claim that witching is valid (supernatural or natural, I don't care) did come first or the conversation wouldn't exist. All that said...lack of valid evidence for an event does not take the event out of the realm of possibility, but it does not lend the event even an inkling of credibility.
Okay, we've really deviated from the original intent of the thread, but it's a fun exercise anyway isn't it?
My points ties back to post no. 1. I don't see any scientific evidence that witching is a valid method for locating anything. If anything, there is some evidence that points the other direction. My considerable personal experience (deviating from the original post for a second) with witching does not in any way support it's validity. I don't care a lick people whether or not people claim that dowsing is natural or supernatural...I just care if there's some valid evidence.
My comment about you "missing the point" was in reference to your comment that lack of scientific support for an event is not evidence or proof that the event is not real or that it is supernatural. Two things about that... First, I'll fall back on Sagan's quote..."Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The more extreme the claim the more powerful and compelling the evidence needs to be. The statement "Joe went to the store to pick up a pack of smokes" really doesn't require a bundle of compelling evidence because we know that there are people named Joe, who go to stores, and they buy smokes. The statement "Larry eats raw chicken heads and has conversations with the dead" falls outside the realm of our "ordinary" experience and knowledge and would require extraordinary evidence. Second, burden of proof lies on those making the claim. I could claim that Leroy the invisible purple gnome is sitting on my left shoulder. The proof is, of course, that it rains. Leroy causes rain...and you believe in rain...right? And yes, the claim that witching is valid (supernatural or natural, I don't care) did come first or the conversation wouldn't exist. All that said...lack of valid evidence for an event does not take the event out of the realm of possibility, but it does not lend the event even an inkling of credibility.
Okay, we've really deviated from the original intent of the thread, but it's a fun exercise anyway isn't it?
Codger_64
Moderator
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2004
- Messages
- 61,828
I understand. Your mind is made up. Don't confuse you with proof.
Preacher Man
Moderator
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2005
- Messages
- 4,404
It is definitely an interesting and fun exercise for me. I quite enjoy though provoking, intelligent conversation, and you sir are definitely an intelligent, well informed man.
I'll share my thoughts, just so you know what I think and get some understanding on my point of view. Although I'd love to debate this, I don't want to hijack the thread, and we need to get it back on track. Pity.
Please know that I understand your position and I do respect it. I have reservations with it, though. This deserves a more developed presentation, but this is not the place for it. I'll try to be as brief and clear as possible. Please excuse my rushing through this.
I love Sagan, read a few of his books and loved Cosmos, but his "extraordinary claims" quote wasn't quite original. He was building on a concept/argument originally proposed by David Hume. The problem I have with it is that there is a built-in logical trap in it. The argument redefines the nature of evidence. Evidence is evidence, but extraordinary evidence is something that only the person requesting it can define. This is why this idea can't be applied to evidentiary rules in a courtroom. Standards of evidence must be well known, defined, and standardized as applied to all parties. What constitute acceptable evidence and how it will be evaluated can't be defined just by one party, nor can that party be relieved from presenting refuting evidence if requested. This argument gives an incredible advantage and control over any decision to the party claiming the need for extraordinary evidence. Again, a reason why this is unacceptable to legal proceedings or even historical analysis.
An additional problem is the issue of world-view presuppositions. Some conflicts of opinions are based on their presuppositions. They make different assumptions and reach different conclusions as a result of those foundational positions that affect how the evaluate reality. Giving one side the power to define evidence, and then become judge, prosecutor, and jury over the validity and meaning of said evidence means that for some issues no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient since at the heart of the matter the real problem is not the evidence but the presuppositions pro or against it of the arbiter. For example, in this case, statistical evidence should be considered if the success rate is more than the rate of mere chance. This is evidence that something more than chance is at work. It doesn't prove what is happening, but it does proves that something is happening. A presupposition bias may ignore this and require an arbitrary higher success rate before discarding chance, or even bypass this type of statistical evidence all together, even though the statistical possibility of chance has already been eliminated.
I hope you get an idea of my position. I know you will disagree, but if we agreed we wouldn't be having this conversation. My intention is not to convince, just to share my opinion with you. Consider visiting us at Political Arena. It can get a little intense there, but is never dull.
And now, back to the OP...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,797
I'm sorry, I lost you after this part. What were we talking about?
Preacher Man
Moderator
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2005
- Messages
- 4,404
I'm sure it's been said in the 9 pages already, but I think that dowsing rods are just a way to measure innate physical reactions we have to changes in the environment around us. I don't believe that every physical characteristic of a particular environment can be observed as easily as others, and that there are some people who are not necessarily more able to sense these things but pay more attention. Think about the old guy that knows it's going to rain whenever his elbow hurts; a lot of people might dismiss that kind of stuff, but I've always been able to smell rain coming. People use to scoff at this idea, until one day I met an old woman that said, "Smells like rain," and I said, 'Oh, you can smell that too?' She was pretty smart, turns out that the ozone or something in the atmosphere increases before it rains and that's what we were smelling.
So it wouldn't surprise me at all that the human body has innate physical reactions to various changes such as underground water or lines or things like that. That sort of thing can lead to subtle changes in the environment that we may not notice, so we conclude that they are not there. However, think about it... Don't you think the ground on top of an underground water line is going to be a little different from the rest of the surrounding ground? Perhaps the surface layer is not as level, or the dirt is more or less compact, who knows, but I don't doubt for a second that the human body has the ability to sense these changes, I think it's all a matter of whether the human brain can interpret and process the signals it's getting.
Think about how fine your sense of balance is and your motor input control is. I watched a program that said most people can feel being off-of-center at levels as small as one half of one degree in gyroscopes. Take that and think about walking through a field looking for a well... Do you think your body really doesn't notice when the ground gets softer, or lower than what it was a few paces behind you? Your body notices, it's just your brain that disregards the input because there's nothing significant enough for you to confirm it. If there's nothing visually that tells you you're on a grade, and the grade itself doesn't impart enough of a physical force for you to feel it, how would you really know it's there?
I think that dowsing rods just offer a way for us to observe our body's reaction to changes that may not impact our senses enough for our brains to go, "Hey, there's something there." Changes effect more subtle, sub-conscious parts of our brains like motor control too, so if you're holding two dowsing rods and all the sudden they cross, that's a good indicator that your body just reacted to something, even if given your other sense you cannot tell there's anything there.
I think it would be interesting to hook up a dowser to a portable EKG and get readings while they're dowsing. Perhaps they would find evidence that it is a reflexive action.
So it wouldn't surprise me at all that the human body has innate physical reactions to various changes such as underground water or lines or things like that. That sort of thing can lead to subtle changes in the environment that we may not notice, so we conclude that they are not there. However, think about it... Don't you think the ground on top of an underground water line is going to be a little different from the rest of the surrounding ground? Perhaps the surface layer is not as level, or the dirt is more or less compact, who knows, but I don't doubt for a second that the human body has the ability to sense these changes, I think it's all a matter of whether the human brain can interpret and process the signals it's getting.
Think about how fine your sense of balance is and your motor input control is. I watched a program that said most people can feel being off-of-center at levels as small as one half of one degree in gyroscopes. Take that and think about walking through a field looking for a well... Do you think your body really doesn't notice when the ground gets softer, or lower than what it was a few paces behind you? Your body notices, it's just your brain that disregards the input because there's nothing significant enough for you to confirm it. If there's nothing visually that tells you you're on a grade, and the grade itself doesn't impart enough of a physical force for you to feel it, how would you really know it's there?
I think that dowsing rods just offer a way for us to observe our body's reaction to changes that may not impact our senses enough for our brains to go, "Hey, there's something there." Changes effect more subtle, sub-conscious parts of our brains like motor control too, so if you're holding two dowsing rods and all the sudden they cross, that's a good indicator that your body just reacted to something, even if given your other sense you cannot tell there's anything there.
I think it would be interesting to hook up a dowser to a portable EKG and get readings while they're dowsing. Perhaps they would find evidence that it is a reflexive action.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2008
- Messages
- 64
If it were any good for finding oil, gold, silver, copper, meteorites, dinosaur fossils, archaeological goodies or any other valuable stuff I think the argument would be put to rest pretty quickly by some very rich folks. Hell, there's some areas where plain old underground water is very valuable and there are many expensive methods to find it. All you successful dowsers are in the wrong line of work.
Rule # 1 of the mysterious claims game; If there are obvious big bucks to be made if it's true and nobody's making them, it's bunk.
Rule # 1 of the mysterious claims game; If there are obvious big bucks to be made if it's true and nobody's making them, it's bunk.
Preacher Man
Moderator
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2005
- Messages
- 4,404
That is a very good argument.
Codger_64
Moderator
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2004
- Messages
- 61,828
It would be if a person claimed the ability to locate such substances at any depth and the ability to differentiate between them. If you review my posts here, you will note that I make no such claims. I've gone into detail as to what I do and how I do it. The above arguement is what is known as a "strawman", setting up an claim that one's debate opponent hasn't made in order to knock it down.
However, ground penetrating radar isn't that expensive and handheld portable units are made by many companies now. This is what most utilities now use. Some detector units use sondes (signal sending units attached to an end of a pipe) and some don't. In the not-so distant past, they used magnetic based detectors.
Speaking of which, I have friends in Australia who make a fair bit of spending change finding gold using electronic detectors. IIRC, there is established, proven science behind all of these gadgets, anyone who can read and understand the instruction book can use them and none of them rely on majick. I don't have any idea as to how many people are getting rich off of them or what their level of wealth is. I never got rich using a stud locator to find wall studs when I did carpentry. They worked off of magnetic attraction to iron nails behind sheetrock mud and tape, plaster or paneling. The locator I own is a simple manual one, but I note that they have electronic ones now.
Magic! You can get rich too! And all for about $100 used in as-new condition!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2008
- Messages
- 64
If you'll read my post you will see that it was not directed at you. We've seen, in 9 pages, claims of finding water, buried items in a field and an old building foundation. It's not any stretch of the imagination to translate that over to some of the things I've mentioned and even if you can only find water with better than average consistency you can win the million dollars, soooo... Money to be made and nobody's making it = bunk. If you're so sure you're doing it right then would you rather argue with some chump on the internet or go get yourself that million bucks?
Preacher Man
Moderator
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2005
- Messages
- 4,404
The problem with this is that even if I know I can do something perfectly, if I'm suspicious of the motivations of the tester, or think the tester is offering the price with a secret agenda, or think the test may not be fair, I'm not bitting. Once I show up, if I think the test is not fair and walk away, that will count as another "fraud" too scared to be tested. My suspicions of the tester's motivations or the test's fairness is not evidence one way or another. Now, using my ability in the marketplace is an entirely different proposition, which is what I found compelling in your argument. In the marketplace the only agenda is making money, not trying to paint me and what I do in a favorable or negative light. There is no publicity nor loss of face, only the possibility of making money or loosing a client. But keep in mind that in the marketplace the most likely scenario is that a dowser will use his ability and then confirm his find through other methods.