Anyone else able to divine for water

I wasn't there so I can't offer an informed opinion on what happened, but I can make a few suggestions.

1 - The pipe location: you got lucky. People get lucky all the time. We always hear about the lucky ones because people don't go around talking about the time they didn't find a pipe with dowsing rods, for the same reason they don't go around talking about when a psychic made a prediction that never worked out.
2 - Sceptic: I don't think you are a sceptic, just a person who hadn't been convinced of that particular thing yet. Scepticism is a mindset, following a collection of principles - one which you don't seem to understand very well.
3 - Two rods: confirmation bias. You were told that it only worked with two so your brain made it so.
4 - Science: that wasn't an experiment, and the fact that you think it was shows that you don't really get how science works, which relates to #2 above.

There's no such thing as ideomotor muscles. It is the ideomotor effect, which works through the muscles. It is an effect whereby the brain will make the muscles move unconsciously to fit a movement that they are expecting to make.

Like when people do a ouija board: there is no ghost involved, their own hands are moving it without them realising.

The rods aren't crossing to the presence of water, that has been demonstrated. They are crossing randomly, or when the user expects them to cross. We only hear about the lucky ones. Just like with psychic predictions.

CelticRambler wrote: »

Hmm. So the rods swinging consistently at one point and at no other, repeated several times to confirm that it wasn't just luck was in fact just luck. OK, sounds reasonable.

That probably explains why they only swing through 90° in one precise point on the lane too, and then swing back to 0° a step forwards or backwards. I never realised I was so lucky! Why doesn't it work with scratch cards?

Again, I wasn't there so there's not much I can say. However, I would suggest the first was luck, and after that it was confirmation bias.

Who told me? I thought it was a experiment all of my own making. There I was thinking (as a scientist) that it would be interesting to see if the rods swung sideways at the same point if there was only one involved. So someone's whispering in my ear and I don't know it? :eek:

I might have mixed you up with a previous pro-dowsing poster who said they had someone take them out and show them. (Edit: although I am sure you had heard about dowsing before, and that it required two rods, rather than coming up with the concept entirely on your own)

Feck. I've wasted five years of university education and twenty-five years of my professional life thinking I knew about science. :pac: Are there any on-line courses I can take to correct my misunderstanding (and do you think my professional colleagues will recognise them?)

Did you know that polls have shown that a shockingly high number of science graduates don't understand the philosophy of science? Being a scientist doesn't mean you're a good scientist.

But let's work through this then. What was your hypothesis? What is the proposed mechanism of action? Did you document the experiment? Did you perform multiple trials? Was there a blind or double blind element? Have you formed a cohesive theory that explains the phenomenon? Did you make the slightest effort to compensate for possible bias? Was the experimenter and the subject in fact the same person?

You think you can engage in one act of flawed, anecdotal, credulous floundering and call it science because you did a related degree, but that's just an argument from authority. Your profound inability to actual behave in a scientific manner renders your background completely meaningless. You think one lad waving some rods in a field counts as science. It's a joke.

Zillah wrote: »

But let's work through this then. What was your hypothesis? What is the proposed mechanism of action? Did you document the experiment? Did you perform multiple trials? Was there a blind or double blind element? Have you formed a cohesive theory that explains the phenomenon? Did you make the slightest effort to compensate for possible bias? Was the experimenter and the subject in fact the same person?

As I mentioned above, the initial "trial" was conducted by four scientists, only one of whom knew the actual location of the test object. Of the three of us who tried to find it, I was the only one who succeeded, and yes we performed multiple trials at the time and have done since.

No, we didn't document our results (we do enough of that every day, this was just for fun) but in response to your earlier criticisms, I've already indicated that I'll run another trial next week when I've got some naïve subjects ... and someone to video the proceedings.

I don't know what your background is, but surely you know that some of the most useful scientific discoveries came from unplanned "experiments" where no-one had proposed any hypothesis or mechanism of action. I didn't stop the findings being confirmed by subsequent trials, even in the absence of a properly described mechanism.

FWIW, I am constructing a trial to attempt to understand what the rods swing (every time) when crossing each of four lines of fruit trees I have planted in my orchard. The working hypothesis is that the strimmed ground between them is less compacted than the grasses alleys that get mowed regularly. :P

But hey, it might just be luck and confirmation bias ... :cool:

FWIW 2: I don't believe in homeopathy, but I do believe in acupuncture. I have no scientific understanding of how it works, but I've seen enough cases respond to my treatments when my colleagues' thoroughly hypothesised and proven strategies have failed not to worry too much about knowing everything.

CelticRambler wrote: »

As I mentioned above, the initial "trial" was conducted by four scientists, only one of whom knew the actual location of the test object. Of the three of us who tried to find it, I was the only one who succeeded, and yes we performed multiple trials at the time and have done since.

Wait, so out of three initial attempts only one was successful? That doesn't seem like an unlikely outcome for random guessing for something as small as a half acre (that's what you said, wasn't it?). You also had a person with you who knew the location of the water - that removes the double blind element, he could easily have been influencing you. (Unless you were the one who knew? I'm still not entirely clear, but the point is the same)

(As an aside: I once read about a horse that was smart enough to do arithmetic. It would tap its hooves to signal the number when presented with a problem to solve. It was incredibly consistent, but it wasn't until it was separated from its owner that it failed every test. It turned out the owner was unconsciously moving his head in anticipation and accidentally giving the horse a signal that it was time to stop tapping. Still shows a high level of intelligence on the horse's part but of a very different kind. We can accidentally send each other all kinds of signals, that's why double-blind trials are so important)

No, we didn't document our results (we do enough of that every day, this was just for fun) but in response to your earlier criticisms, I've already indicated that I'll run another trial next week when I've got some naïve subjects ... and someone to video the proceedings.

Good. That should be more interesting. I would suggest you explain the process to them and then leave so that there is no one present that could influence them, however unconsciously.

I don't know what your background is, but surely you know that some of the most useful scientific discoveries came from unplanned "experiments" where no-one had proposed any hypothesis or mechanism of action. I didn't stop the findings being confirmed by subsequent trials, even in the absence of a properly described mechanism.

Absolutely! But when there is an odd phenomenon the correct response is "Huh" not "We have a magical ability to sense the presence of water, dowsing is real". Finding the "huh" moment is step 1 of a very long process, but you've jumped right to the end. There are innumerable possible explanations - most of which rely on very well understood psychological phenomena. They have to be explored and accounted for before a scientist should even begin to consider the existence of strange and mystical powers at work.

pedigree 6 wrote: »

It must be down to electro magnetism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field

You take why does it work with metal rods/ wire. It must be to do with the conductivity of metal. The same could be said for hazel rods (in that the water in the hazel rod conducts charge/electricity).

You take when divining with wire. There must be a slight electrical/magnetic pull on the wire maybe making one negative charge and the other positive charge to make them pull in together. Then to make the two wires to repel one another the two of them must have the same charge positive or negative.

It might also explain how it can find electric cables. Not sure if the cables have to be live to find them but the metal in itself would give a magnetic draw anyway.

Then with finding water pipes. Water is a good conducter of charge/electricity.
But it might give off more charge when running hitting the sides of the pipe and building up more charge.

Then with some people able to do and others not. There is a difference in bodies in people.
My uncle can grab any electric fence and join it together again without turning it off and it has no effect on him. He just says he'd barely feel the current in the fence. He was out in nz and a farmer was showing him a great new fencer he had that was doing 700 acres. He grabbed the fence and jokingly said to the farmer are you sure it's on. Your man couldn't get over how he could hold it and have no effect on him. Then you have myself and my father even with the fence turned on low here if we touched it we'd fall over.:pac:

Anyhow was just thinking about it when I was tidying up a few paddocks this morning. Too much time on me hands.:)

My father in law was the same a great man to find water via divining and a messer with electric fences. Never bothered him and he'd shake your hand and you'd be lifted.

^ We used to touch electric fences with a blade of grass to see if they were live.

Regarding the wire/welding rod theory - how does this explain the forked hazel branch technique?

ganmo wrote: »

just because something isn't understood or not fully explainable doesn't mean it's not true.

For example homeopathy for all its craziness did manage to come up with a cure for cancer.

Is this the definition of going from the ridiculous to the ludicrous?
Whatever about people thinking that water 100ft. under the ground will cause two bent welding rods to twitch believing that water(with a memory!) will cure cancer takes the biscuit.
About as much faith in these things as my neighbour looking for prayers to cure the orf in his lambs.

You still don't seem to understand that you being both the test subject and the scientist is worthless from a scientific point of view. You need to be tested under controlled conditions by a third party with no bias. Countless people believe with a passion that they can do what you think you can can do, and every time someone else has tested them they have failed completely. That wiki link earlier has plenty of examples of rigorous tests proving that these people are no better at finding water than random guessing would achieve.

CelticRambler wrote: »

But your preferred explanation is that my subconscious is being manipulated by persons unknown to me, even when I'm the only biped within 600km who knows that I've decided to walk across a field with two bits of wire in my hands. That's a killer argument.

You said there were four people present so I've no idea what you're even trying to say any more.

pedigree 6 wrote: »

If this thread dies I want to put in that the maximum amount of magnetic force is gained when the wires are perpendicular to the magnetic field.
I've heard one person say it is the hall effect?
You have to remember the earth is a giant magnet and current passes through our bodies as well.
Look it only worked for me with running waterpipes and water conducts electricity and may cause a slight magnetic field and may up through the person standing over it.
Then I heard someone say it only works in the daytime but that might be because that's when we are facing the sun and charged particles from the sun can reach the earth on this side when the solar wind shield is at its thinnest when facing the sun.
So then you have velocity, force and magnetic field.
If someone in the future can put all the pieces together well and good.
If not won't loose sleep over it.

What s/he said.

"How come my dog don't bark when you come around?"

_Brian wrote: »

I'm sure many of you will have held strong magnets in your hand, car speakers or even stronger.
They will act on a metal object relatively close to itself, but have no effect being 4-6 inches.
Can you imagine how strong the magnetic force in something would need to be to move these metal rods from 6ft through earth and concrete. And people are believing that somehow a small pile with flowing water somehow does this ?
If that was tha case can you imagine the power from water in a river with 1000 times the flowing water ??
And really, how is it supposed to move a hazel rod ? Someone mentioned because the hazel rod probably has water in it, well we have far more water in us ~90% water so why don't magnets stick to us or why aren't we effected by large bodies of flowing water like a river or the ocean since aparrently this effect is from flowing water.
if flowing water could emit this sort of magnetic power it would be a measured and known effect.

It's the subconscious mind that does it, nothing to do with magnetic force.