Printable View
Ok that makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Splinter
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.
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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by wireliner
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.go...nd-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
Well how about that. We must be twins. I have never done any of those either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Splinter
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?
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...
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/testin...h_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
As per Steamingbill's post, surface, NSW groundwater and borehole data are available from NSW Waterinfo.
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...
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.
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.
Works for me :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy John
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by elanjacobs
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy John
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
Yet I keep finding water.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Splinter
Can you elaborate on what you think are flaws in the testing?Quote:
Originally Posted by rustynail
Also, in the majority of the tests, the diviners did NOT return to the same location twice.
Animals can also find north. And water (but usually at depths that are easy to dig to manually, not meters underground).Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy John
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy John
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
A few comments:Quote:
Originally Posted by rustynail
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.
I dont feel the need to place things in categories. I dont feel the need to justify nor dispute. When I fail, Ill stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by elanjacobs
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.
My feelings too, rustynail. With so many believers there must be something there.Quote:
I dont feel the need to place things in categories. I dont feel the need to justify nor dispute. When I fail, Ill stop.
If you apply your logic then Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy _must_ be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dareen
I think we would be in the minority rather than the majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dareen
The need for proof is reasonable.
The fact that so many have failed is justification enough for doubt.
The fact that tests conducted have been less than conducive also justify skepticism
The one thing that does make the difference between diviners and non diviners is success. What ever the reasons for that success may be, it remains a success.
If and when you fail and there is no justification for that failure, you must question your ability.
Not sure about the water but I often use the technique to find underground power lines. Haven't missed one yet.
I'd have thought the aim was to miss them.:DQuote:
Haven't missed one yet.