Question - Need for Preliminary Phase of Challenge

[belinda]

I am currently in the process of providing information to a person who claims she has water diviner skills about the Aus Skeptics challenge (A$100,000). I mentioned to her that I thought that if she won this - she would not have to go through the preliminary phase of the JREF challenge. Is this correct?

Its not acutally outlined in the challenge rules, but I am sure I have read something along these lines somewhere. Can anybody enlighten me??

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by belinda
I am currently in the process of providing information to a person who claims she has water diviner skills about the Aus Skeptics challenge (A$100,000). I mentioned to her that I thought that if she won this - she would not have to go through the preliminary phase of the JREF challenge. Is this correct?

Its not acutally outlined in the challenge rules, but I am sure I have read something along these lines somewhere. Can anybody enlighten me??

Randi has confirmed similar arrangements before -- but I suspect that he will have to know about the challenge and expressly agree to have the protocal for the Aus test "count" in order to work this.

A query directly to Randi (who rarely looks over any of these threads) would be the best way to set this up.

[Zep]

In a test series involving a number of Australian water diviners previously in which Randi took a close interest, he said that, for those people at that particular test series, if they passed, it would be accepted that they had passed the JREF Prize preliminary challenge. But I don't think that offer carried forward from then, because I would expect Randi would want to be sure that the testing each time is up to the JREF Prize requirements. Check with Richard!

[homer]

Water divining seems to work only when the dowsers know in advance where the water is . The fact that it's been successful in the real world seems to be due to the fact that if you dig down deep enough in most places eventually you hit water , or Oil if you get lucky !

[Ashles]

I am currently in the process of providing information to a person who claims she has water diviner skills about the Aus Skeptics challenge (A$100,000). I mentioned to her that I thought that if she won this - she would not have to go through the preliminary phase of the JREF challenge.

Maybe you should get her to do a pre-preliminary test with you just so she understands what will be involved.

Have six cups and fill one with water then cover them all with plates then ask her to use her skills to identify the water filled cup. (obviously don't let her see which one you put it in).

Keep sending her out of the room and then rearranging them.

If she can get it right, say, 20 times out of fifty then she could well be on to something. However if she refuses to do this or performs at chance level, try to encourage her not to apply for the challenge and thus not waste everyone's time.

[Ashles]

I am bumping this thread because I think it is a very interesting one.

How many of us have friends who claim to be able to sense/predict/exhibit some form of 'paranormal' ability (ie. something in some way unexplained by current scientific thinking)? Quite a few I would imagine.

Belinda obviously has a friend who believes in their ability. Now it is so easy for us all to nod quietly when friends say these things (and maybe most of the time they are just saying it as a conversation piece) but sometimes even friends should be challenged if they are claiming strongly that their ability is real.

Not aggressively, not gleefully, but in the spirit of genuine interest.

Belinda's friend obviously feels strongly enough to actually be prepared to be tested, so i think it would be interesting to see whether Belinda has actually suggested a pre-trial test to her friend and how she reacted/performed.

I hope Belinda returns to this thread and updates us.

Similarly if anyone else has a friend who really believes in their unusual abilities, try actually giving them a little test and seeing how they perform. And keep us all updated.

It is also interesting to see how DALTON pulled out in another thread, claiming not to understand why a non-scientist should be involved. Remember, many of these claims go unchallenged for a long time because people rarely watch them with the thought of trickery or misdirection in mind. It's worth always keeping an eye out for it - sometimes people use trickery and subtle clues when they do not even realise it.

[belinda]

Thanks for all your feedback - particularly Ashles. I hadn't thought of getting her to do a pre-preliminary test [slap forehead]. I'm going to speak to her about it, but as you all surmised she is very sincere in her belief of what she can do - and in the driest continent, water is a very precious resource. She actually works (for a very small fee) as a water diviner around my partner's parents' town. Of course she has a very high success rate - give the water table - however I have yet to convince her that it is more to do with involuntary muscle movements than any ability on her part.

I don't want to humiliate her - she's a lovely person - and surprisingly skeptical about other items (eg UFO's ghosts etc) - but she does have her blinkers on this point.

I only asked about Randi's challenge so as I could be sure I was telling her the truth - not because I had any illusions about the likelihood of her succeeding. But then again I should not decide a priori about it, should I! :D

If she agrees, I will keep you up to date.

[Zep]

Where abouts is this, Belinda? Town?

[belinda]

Would you believe Gympie! :p

[Zep]

Yes, I'd believe Gympie.

It might be worth doing this a bit formally - make a video record of it. Demonstrate not just the failure to dowse, but also the formal process required even to be taken seriously in testing it. And how it is NOT meant to be a humiliating experience, nor do we cackle with glee when they fail. A "primer", if you will.

[Ashles]

I don't want to humiliate her - she's a lovely person - and surprisingly skeptical about other items (eg UFO's ghosts etc) - but she does have her blinkers on this point.
Absolutely. The JREF challenge should never be about humiliation. Merely getting people to think about their abilities in a more objective situation.
I am sure your friend is lovely and I have had some lovely friends who believe in their unusual abilities. These abilities, however, have sounded very good based on previous stories they have told about them, but become a little more abstract when asked to demonstrate them again.
Try her out on my suggested test. I know how hard it is with friends, but it would be a great indicator.

[Marrena]

Pardon me for jumping in but could both be right? It seems obvious to me that the ability to find water in an environment must be a very instinctive thing, and an important evolutionary advantage. Dowsing seems like an ideal way to disconnect the chatter of the rational mind and let the instinctive part of a person speak up, the instinctive part that might notice very small clues in the environment showing where the water is. Of course this would not be a paranormal ability but it would also explain the high success rate of dowsers finding naturally occurring water.

[Skipbidder]

Originally posted by Marrena
Pardon me for jumping in but could both be right? It seems obvious to me that the ability to find water in an environment must be a very instinctive thing, and an important evolutionary advantage. Dowsing seems like an ideal way to disconnect the chatter of the rational mind and let the instinctive part of a person speak up, the instinctive part that might notice very small clues in the environment showing where the water is. Of course this would not be a paranormal ability but it would also explain the high success rate of dowsers finding naturally occurring water.

There doesn't seem to be any need to create explanations for why something works when nobody has ever been able to demonstrate that it actually does work.

[Marrena]

Has it ever been tested with naturally occurring water, rather than something unnatural like tricky underground pipes or water buried in a box? Just curious--what I know about dowsing could fit on the head of a pin. Of course that would be proof that it's the opposite of paranormal so it wouldn't be eligible for the million, but it would be proof of a handy skill to have. I'm guessing.

[Zep]

Marenna,

Naturally occuring water actually does indeed leave clues that any astute observer can pick up on. Sometimes these are only small, even imperceptible to the untrained eye, but they do exist and offer rational explanation for the being able to pick natural water. Then again, many non-dowsers have been just as accurate - there are many examples of these people being able to "locate" underground water pipes...by drawing a line from the water tank to the faucet beside the house.

The thing is, many dowsers do actually claim to be able to perform successfully with pipes and water hidden in glasses and so on. Many also claim to be able to detect oil, various metals, objects, people, etc, under similar conditions. So these are testable claims that they are making.

The basic testing process runs like this:

1. The claimant assures that the test setup is fair for them.
2. They set a success rate they believe they can achieve in this test setup.
3. They assure that their dowsing ability is operational on the day of testing.
4. They assure that the test setup is free from any interference that would throw their dowsing off.
5. They prove to their own satisfaction using dry runs with targets in open view that their dowsing ability is quite operational, and that they understand the test process.
6. The testing is then conducted identical to the dry run, but with blinded targets. The tests are repeated a number of times to give a series of results.
7. Evaluate scores against the claimant's expected success rate.

So it is not like the skeptics are trying to put dowsers in a place where they are uncomfortable and cannot perform in an effort to discredit them. All effort is made to ensure that they have conditions they can perform successfully in, without breaking from adequate testing controls.

So far, no dowsers have ever scored better than chance under fair and equitable conditions such as these. Certainly they have never scored to their own expected success rate.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Marrena
Has it ever been tested with naturally occurring water, rather than something unnatural like tricky underground pipes or water buried in a box? Just curious--what I know about dowsing could fit on the head of a pin. Of course that would be proof that it's the opposite of paranormal so it wouldn't be eligible for the million, but it would be proof of a handy skill to have. I'm guessing.
The problem with dowsing for "natural" water is in the verification. Drilling a well is not cheap. To adequately test a dowser, you would have to drill enough wells in an area to get an valid sample of what the success rate is, then you would have to drill a fairly large number of dowser-located wells to see if their accuracy was statistically better than those positioned by geologic appraisal. This could run into some serious money.

But before all the dowsing tests that have been performed so far that I am aware of, the applicants have state unequivocally that they could find any water. However, after the tests, they often change their story.

One suggestion that has been made is to have the dowser locate a place where there isn't water, since they are much less common in the subsurface.

[Carn]

Originally posted by Tricky
To adequately test a dowser, you would have to drill enough wells in an area to get an valid sample of what the success rate is, then you would have to drill a fairly large number of dowser-located wells to see if their accuracy was statistically better than those positioned by geologic appraisal. This could run into some serious money.


I would not set them up against geologic science, because it might be possible that the trined human brain still could be better than geological science about finding water.
Testing dowsers against some people who live in dry areas, who still nearly live like thousands of years ago, would be more adequate. Whatever potential skill there is for humans to find water, those people will have nearly maxed it genetically since thousands of years. I guess they will be far better than dowsers in their natural enviroment.

I know, they often claim some spirits told them, but then it would be proven it has nothing to do with sticks vibrating.

Oh know, dowsers would then start to claim their rods allow them to commune with nature spirits:D .

Carn

[Marrena]

Well, seeing it from the other side, as a person with high dopamine--if you have to do something tricky, and convincing yourself spirits are guiding you is the best way to shut up your rational mind and let your instincts take over, someone could easily get confused and start really believing that.

For example, I'm Wiccan. This involves a lot of focus and thought about the moon. Since I've been doing it, my menstrual cycle is getting in sync with the lunar cycle. Now the obvious scientific explanation for this is that with my focus on the moon, I am instinctively falling into exposing myself to evening artificial light in the same pattern as moonlight (I'm certainly not spending all my time at night outdoors gazing at the moon). This practice will cause any woman's cycle to shift. But I could easily delude myself into somehow thinking the Moon was exerting some kind of spiritual force on my body to regulate my period.

[EHocking]

Originally posted by Carn
I would not set them up against geologic science, because it might be possible that the trined human brain still could be better than geological science about finding water.
There's a simple way to test this.
Why is it that the oil industry (dowsers also claim to be able to find oil) spends *billions* of dollars a year on shooting and interpreting seismic and employing thousands of geoscientists when the could hire a yokel dowser for a couple of hundred a week?

My logic (and 20 years experienc in a drilling department of a petroleum company) tells me that we spend the billions on what works...

[Carn]

Originally posted by EHocking
There's a simple way to test this.
Why is it that the oil industry (dowsers also claim to be able to find oil) spends *billions* of dollars a year on shooting and interpreting seismic and employing thousands of geoscientists when the could hire a yokel dowser for a couple of hundred a week?

My logic (and 20 years experienc in a drilling department of a petroleum company) tells me that we spend the billions on what works...

Right, with Oil, science is likely to win, but with water the dowsers might still have a chance.

Carn

[Skipbidder]

Originally posted by Marrena
Well, seeing it from the other side, as a person with high dopamine--if you have to do something tricky, and convincing yourself spirits are guiding you is the best way to shut up your rational mind and let your instincts take over, someone could easily get confused and start really believing that.

For example, I'm Wiccan. This involves a lot of focus and thought about the moon. Since I've been doing it, my menstrual cycle is getting in sync with the lunar cycle. Now the obvious scientific explanation for this is that with my focus on the moon, I am instinctively falling into exposing myself to evening artificial light in the same pattern as moonlight (I'm certainly not spending all my time at night outdoors gazing at the moon). This practice will cause any woman's cycle to shift. But I could easily delude myself into somehow thinking the Moon was exerting some kind of spiritual force on my body to regulate my period.

Do you really assert that your menstrual cycles are getting in sync with the lunar cycle? Are your cycles regular? If they are, then they are always going to be either moving "out of sync" or "into sync" with the lunar cycle. This is demonstrable from simple mathematics. If they are not regular, it is hard to understand what your claim actually is.

It sounds like you have just said that the obvious scientific explanation for this reported event (menstrual cycle synchronizing with lunar cycle) is that you are exposing yourself to a significant amount of artificial light. Are you really asserting that this is the case and that this is the "obvious scientific explanation"? I'm just trying to understand your claims before asking follow up questions.

Would you feel uncomfortable with questions regarding your religion? I'll certainly refrain if that is the case. The reason I ask is that there are a fair number of beliefs held by many who call themselves Wiccan that would probably be eligible for the million dollar prize. (Although I must admit that my friends and acquaintances from whom I've heard these sort of claims tend to call themselves Neo-Pagan or members of Church of All Worlds. With almost all of them, I haven't questioned them out of respect for their feelings.)

[EHocking]

Originally posted by Carn
Right, with Oil, science is likely to win, but with water the dowsers might still have a chance.

Carn
Why?

Dowsers claim to be able to find both and fail at finding both under controlled circumstances.

On the water well side, google for Betz and JSE. This is a clear example of wishful thinking overtaking science.

Google groups for counter discussions of this paper.

THis is the best the dowsing community can come up with as an argument for science vs dowsing.

Nothing else since 1985 - so why the hope that dowsing may still have a chance? What is that hope based on?

[Carn]

Originally posted by EHocking
Why?


Nothing else since 1985 - so why the hope that dowsing may still have a chance? What is that hope based on?

Didn't read the paper, but i my statement refers to the above discussed test of dowsers and geologist trying to find natural water sources.
And the chance is there, because its something, which can be important for survival. And whenever something has been important for survival since millions of years, there is the chance that trained biological systems are superior to scientific approaches.
Take interpreting human faces, science is trying to get at that, but huamn brain is still far ahead.

I do not know how good a trained human is at finding water sources by just observing the landscape, but the best might still be better than science. Therefore i also suggested to compare dowsers to people, whose survival still relies on finding water in dry enviroment, because those are certainly among the best.
Of course the best might be among geologists, who i expect also have skill in just searching by their senses, then they would certainly win against dowsers.

In detecting water that does not cause any visible signs on the surface(e.g. pipes), i expect dowsers to fail always miserable, because then their subconcious has no useful information to interpret and then dowsers are down to chance, as it has been shown in numerous tests.

Carn

Thinking about it there is no reason the average dowser is good at finding naturally occuring water, but maybe among the thousands of dowsers around the world, there is one good and if chance gets this one into a test against science, then he might win with luck.

[Ashles]

In detecting water that does not cause any visible signs on the surface(e.g. pipes), i expect dowsers to fail always miserable, because then their subconcious has no useful information to interpret and then dowsers are down to chance, as it has been shown in numerous tests.
Exactly. What is being tested is dowsing as an ability in itself to find water, not how good people are at analysing subtle environmental clues. No-one is denying that some people will be able to use small details of their environment to find water.

This may be the reason dowsers often refer to their abilities working for "natural water" as opposed to artificial tests. The point is they claim to be able to find water using their dowsing equipment and deny it is due to simply looking at clues in the environment. Either they can do this or they can't and the evidence is against them.

The test will be designed so that luck should not be a factor. They would have to find water without any visual clues at a statistically extremely high success rate. None, even with luck, have even come close.

If everyone on earth took a dowsing test then a couple of people would probably score high enough by chance to be in with a chance of winning. But that is why there is a preliminary and an actual test. If they are lucky enough to pass both, they probably deserve the money because they have paranormal levels of luck.

[Carn]

Yes, but i was talking about a test descibed by Tricky above, that would be with natural water sources.
And i was just trying to argue, that this way there might be a relevant chance for JREF to lose money although nothing para normal is going on.

Carn

[Ashles]

And i was just trying to argue, that this way there might be a relevant chance for JREF to lose money although nothing para normal is going on.
They pretty much cover their bases with regard to these kind of loopholes.
I think dowsers make up a good proportion of the applicants - allowing them any sort of clues of this sort would be picked up by and ruled out by the JREF.
If they allowed these conditions I'm fairly sure a canny 'dowser' would already have walked off with the prize.

[EHocking]

Originally posted by Carn
Didn't read the paper, but i my statement refers to the above discussed test of dowsers and geologist trying to find natural water sources.
Fair enough not plowing through the paper, it's massive. But the reason I quote it is because it is directly related to the discussion, as it is a dowser's account of his participation in an extended (years) water drilling campaign run by professionals and geologists.
And the chance is there, because its something, which can be important for survival. And whenever something has been important for survival since millions of years, there is the chance that trained biological systems are superior to scientific approaches.
Take interpreting human faces, science is trying to get at that, but huamn brain is still far ahead.
I guess that's a fair jumping off point for your opinion, but the counter to it is - dysentary. 100s of thousands of people die from this because they cannot find or maintain a clean water supply. Science, on the other hand can provide such things as water purifying tablets, rehydration tablets, antibacterials and water treatment systems. So I don't believe that your supposition necessarily holds water [groan].

I do not know how good a trained human is at finding water sources by just observing the landscape, but the best might still be better than science. Therefore i also suggested to compare dowsers to people, whose survival still relies on finding water in dry enviroment, because those are certainly among the best.The paper I quoted does just this - unfortunately it is riddled with errors and misrepresentation as it is from a biased dowser's account. If you don't wish to plough through the paper itself Google counter discussions or GroupGoogle at sci.skeptic on the subject.
Of course the best might be among geologists, who i expect also have skill in just searching by their senses, then they would certainly win against dowsers.Most geologists would refer to seismic and known artesian basin data, I think you'll find. An experienced Australian Aboriginal, for instance, would probably beat a geologist hands down. But this is more from local knowledge of the intermittent water courses in the area s/he lives in than anything else. This is bushcraft and not many geologists would be particularly experienced in such a thing.

In detecting water that does not cause any visible signs on the surface(e.g. pipes), i expect dowsers to fail always miserable, because then their subconcious has no useful information to interpret and then dowsers are down to chance, as it has been shown in numerous tests.But dowsers also claim that it is not necessary to have experience in dowsing in order to be able to dowse. Most insist that the dowsing reaction is due to an unknown force and that anyone can do it. Furthermore, your expectations of their success at finding water is still not borne out in field tests, beyond anecdotal "evidence". I have spoken to a number of "good ole boys" who claim to have seen dowsers locate a water supply site for an oil drilling site - but frankly, the only reason you'd be setting up a wellsite in the first place is that you've already got a good idea of the geology of the area, and on land you're practically guaranteed to hit water anyway.

Thinking about it there is no reason the average dowser is good at finding naturally occuring water, but maybe among the thousands of dowsers around the world, there is one good and if chance gets this one into a test against science, then he might win with luck.Yes he may get lucky. I believe that one dowser tested by JREF or the Australian Sceptics, while not beating random chance, was significantly success as to excite them enough to retest him. He failed at the repeat test. And that is the crux of it - repeatability.

Chance has nothing to do with demonstrating a phenomena.

By chance I might score a hole in one in golf, but unless I can repeatedly hole out on that fairway, this is all it is, chance. Nothing more extraordinary than that.

[EHocking]

Originally posted by belinda
Thanks for all your feedback - particularly Ashles. I hadn't thought of getting her to do a pre-preliminary test [slap forehead]. I'm going to speak to her about it, but as you all surmised she is very sincere in her belief of what she can do - and in the driest continent, water is a very precious resource. She actually works (for a very small fee) as a water diviner around my partner's parents' town. Of course she has a very high success rate - give the water table - however I have yet to convince her that it is more to do with involuntary muscle movements than any ability on her part.

I don't want to humiliate her - she's a lovely person - and surprisingly skeptical about other items (eg UFO's ghosts etc) - but she does have her blinkers on this point.

I only asked about Randi's challenge so as I could be sure I was telling her the truth - not because I had any illusions about the likelihood of her succeeding. But then again I should not decide a priori about it, should I! :D

If she agrees, I will keep you up to date.
Any progress with persuading your dowsing friend to attempt some trials, Belinda?

[belinda]

timing plus!....this weekend I am going to the town where this woman is (start of school holidays and all that) and she has agreed to do a little pre-lim test with me. Because it's just me, I will only be doing soft drink bottles painted black (so you can't see if there is water inside) but we will see what happens. I'll keep you guys posted - and even try to put up the results if you want?

[Ashles]

That would be great Belinda.

May I add a couple of suggestions? (I know it complicates it a bit but it's preliminary for the challenge so it would be interesting to try it out for you guys)

Allow your friend to do it with unpainted bottles first so she can be sure that the environment is right for her. Let her see the water clearly but use the dowsing technigue as though she couldn't. This eliminates the potential later complaint that the environment is wrong in some way.

Secondly, you have to try and ignore the fact that you know which bottles have water in. Ideally, in a double blind study, someone else would come in and arrange the bottles so that neither you, or the subject knew which were which. It is possible that the subject can pick up visual clues from you when she is over the water filled bottles.

Thirdly, go through the experiment yourself beforehand. Could you detect the water filled bottles somehow? Condensation on the outside for example, slight bulging etc,

Finally, ensure that no other clues are used, eg, a slight wind might move the bottles a little, whereas the water filled ones will be steady.

I know it sounds over stringent, but it is amazing what cunning methods of pattern recognition our mind is trained to see.

By the way, thanks so much for doing this for us (especially with a toddler). I personally believe all scientific tests, no matter what they show, or who they are performed by are a useful tool in everyday life.

Cheers,

Ash

[EHocking]

Originally posted by belinda
timing plus!....this weekend I am going to the town where this woman is (start of school holidays and all that) and she has agreed to do a little pre-lim test with me. Because it's just me, I will only be doing soft drink bottles painted black (so you can't see if there is water inside) but we will see what happens. I'll keep you guys posted - and even try to put up the results if you want? Great news. I agree with Ashles comments too - give it a go yourself. Which dowsing camp is your friend in, btw? Does she think that dowsing is a natural phenomenon that anyone can do with minimal training, or does she regard the art of dowsing as a "gift"? While it's quite irrelevant to the actual testing, it may give some insight into potential rationalisations post the experiment.

BTW - I've have done my own testing, at the urging of a dowser, with plastic bottles - even when I *could* see water in them I never got a twitch. As for finding gold, well, let's just say that I was lucky my wife wasn't about for the 15mins I spent scrabbling in the grass of the back lawn trying to find my wedding ring!!

[Ashles]

Belinda, any news?

[belinda]

Sorry guys, have to come back to you on it - my partner was involved in a MVA Monday morning - he was on a motorbike and got taken out by a car. He's breathing, but is in hospital with injuries to his knee. When life settles down I'll post a full report - but briefly - expected results and very confused friend.

[Ashles]

Sorry to hear about your partner belinda.

Hope it all heals up quickly and completely.

[EHocking]

Originally posted by Ashles
Sorry to hear about your partner belinda.

Hope it all heals up quickly and completely.
Ditto for me, Belinda. Take your time getting back to us - some things, like RL, are more important.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Ashles
That would be great Belinda.
Allow your friend to do it with unpainted bottles first so she can be sure that the environment is right for her. Let her see the water clearly but use the dowsing technigue as though she couldn't. This eliminates the potential later complaint that the environment is wrong in some way.

She can complain that the paint is throwing her off in some way. The thing to do is use painted bottles for both sets of tests, but for the first test let her know which are full and which are empty.

I can pendulum dowse myself, for water amongst other things, but only if I know where it is beforehand.

[KRAMER]

Randi would need to see the Australian Skeptics test protocol before agreeing to forgoe JREF preliminary testing.

Although I cannot in any way guarantee that Randi would accept this (and cannot confer with him on this personally right now, as he has emabarked upon his European lecture tour and will be away for almost 4 weeks), it seems that the Australian Skeptics are more than sufficiently qualified to devise a test that is acceptable to JREF, and if Randi agreed that this was the case,
I see no reason why the JREF preliminary would not be deemed redundant.

Of course, the person would still be required to APPLY for the Challenge officially by submitting the application and claim letter.

Again, however, Randi himself would need to agree that the test protocol was an acceptable one, prior to testing, and officially sign-off on the JREF preliminary test.

[Ashles]

KRAMER - I don't think we need to worry about this applicant too much:

As belinda mentioned above:
When life settles down I'll post a full report - but briefly - expected results and very confused friend.
When things are back to normal for her I'm sure belinda will let us know what happened - and our thanks to her for saving the Australian Skeptics lots of unnecessary work.

All the best belinda.

[sf108]

hmm. I wonder when she'll come back to post a report...or never? Seems quite coincidental that an accident shall fall upon the day the dowser would be tested. Could Belinda be the actual dowser? :O

Again, we'll all be following this closely if it turns out to be legit.

[belinda]

Originally posted by sf108
hmm. I wonder when she'll come back to post a report...or never? Seems quite coincidental that an accident shall fall upon the day the dowser would be tested. Could Belinda be the actual dowser? :O

Again, we'll all be following this closely if it turns out to be legit.

The wonders of the anoymnous Internet....I don't know if I should feel insulted or not. ;)

Anyway, thanks for everyones good wishes....my partner is now out of hospital and back home (although he may not live by the time I get through with berating him). The accident wasn't his fault (she was coming out of a private driveway and he was just riding straight down the road) but he gave me the scare of my life. Looks like he'll have to have orthopeadic surgery on his knee to fix some ligament damage, but other than that he's fine. Lucky really - he actually ended up lying on the other side of road in the middle of peak hour!

As for the report I have written it....pretty badly I must say - sorry!. But see my next post below for it. I will probably have to break it up over a few posts to fit it in. Happy reading. :p

[belinda]

ABSTRACT

On the morning of Sunday 19/09/2004 an informal experiment was performed with a volunteer water dowser on a private property in Gympie, Queensland to test the viability of dowsing for water with wire.

The dowser involved, Ms C. had agreed to be tested after discussions with the author regarding the possibility of applying for various prizes offered for proof of paranormal ability, including those by the Australian Skeptics and JREF (James Randi Educational Fund). Ms C. has been dowsing for approximately 10 years in the local area.

Ten (10) black painted two (2) litre softdrink bottles were placed in an area of cleared ground of about 100 metres square. A random selection were filled with water and the dowser was allowed to determine whether the bottles contained water or not. Analysis of the results showed that the use of the water dowsing technique yielded results no better than chance.

[belinda]

EXPERIMENTAL EQUIPMENT

Twelve (12) clear soft drink bottles with a capacity of two litres had been collected to be used in the experiment. Ten (10) of these were painted black so that any contents were not visible, whilst two (2) were left clear. Each bottle was numbered from 1 to 12.

The water used to fill the bottles was drawn from a local bore.

The dowsing equipment used by Ms C. was provided by herself and examined by the author. It consisted of two identical pieces of wire and appeared to be made of a flexible metal, similar to coat hanger wire, bent with a right angle to create a short handle and a length of approximately 45 centimetres. Ms C. held a wire in each hand with the length perpendicular to her body and parallel to the ground. She stated that the wires would cross if she found water.

EXPERMENTAL DESIGN

Three difference phases were used in the design of the experiment, with only the last phase actually contributing data for the final analysis. The three phases consisted of:-

1. Phase One – Confirmation of Dowsing under known placement of water in clear bottles
2. Phase Two – Confirmation of Dowsing under known placement of water in painted bottles
3. Phase Thee – Testing of Dowsing under unknown placement of water in painted bottles

[belinda]

PHASE 1

Prior to dowsing for any of the bottles, the author asked Ms C. to dowse the intented testing area, to ensure that no underground water would interefere with the experiment results. She proceeded to do so, and stated that there was water in the north east corner of the chosen area. This area was then marked and not used in the rest of the experiment.

This rest of this phase tested the results of dowsing for water, where the dowser knows where water is placed. Two clear bottles were placed in the testing area. One bottle was filled with water by the author whilst the other was left empty. Both bottles were placed in the testing area with at least 3 metre square of clear land between them. The proceedings was witnessed by the author and one other individual (the author’s husband). Ms C. proceed to dowse for both bottles and stated that she detected water in the bottle that held water and none in the empty bottle. The results are summarised in the following table.

Phase 1 - Clear Bottles
1. Contained Water - dowsed correctly
2. Empty - dowsed correctly

[belinda]

PHASE TWO

Phase two was intended to test if the dowser could correctly dowse for water in painted bottles, when they knew which bottles contained water beforehand. This was done to ensure that the paint did not interfere with the dowsing ability. Ten bottles, painted black and numbered from 3 to 12 were used. The odd numbered bottles were filled with water by the author and then all the bottles were spread randomly in the testing area ensuring that there was at least a clear 3 metre area around each bottle. The dowser was told which bottles (that is the odd-numbered ones) contained the water. The proceedings was witnessed by the author and one other individual (the author’s husband). Ms C. proceed to dowse all of the bottles and recorded on paper which ones she believed contained water. She was permitted to take as much time as she desired, but was not permitted to touch the bottles. The results are summarised in the following table.

Phase 2 – Painted Bottles

3. Contained Water - dowsed correctly
4. Empty - dowsed correctly
5. Contained Water - dowsed correctly
6. Empty - dowsed correctly
7. Contained Water - dowsed correctly
8. Empty - dowsed correctly
9. Contained Water - dowsed correctly
10. Empty - dowsed correctly
11. Contained Water - dowsed correctly
12. Empty - dowsed correctly

[belinda]

PHASE THREE

Phase three was the experimental phase to test if the dowser could correctly dowse for water in painted bottles, where she did not know which bottles contained water. Ten bottles, painted black and numbered 3 to 12 were used. The bottles were randomly filled by the author’s husband who determined if a bottle would be filled by flipping a coin. (heads = water; tails = empty). This was done out of sight of the author and Ms. C. the dowser. After recording the status of each of the bottles, he then placed them in the testing area, ensuring there was a clear 3 metre square area for each bottle and told the author and Ms. C that the area was ready. To ensure the experiment was performed double-blind, he did not witness Ms. C dowsing in this phase. Ms C. then proceeded to dowse these bottles, following the same protocols as in Phase two. The results are in the following table.

Phase 3 – Painted Bottles
3. Water (heads) - dowsed correctly
4. Empty (tails) - dowsed incorrectly
5. Empty (tails) - dowsed correctly
6. Empty (tails) - dowsed incorrectly
7. Water (heads) - dowsed correctly
8. Empty (tails) - dowsed correctly
9. Empty (tails) - dowsed incorrectly
10. Water (heads) - dowsed correctly
11 Water (heads)- dowsed incorrectly
12. Water (heads)- dowsed incorrectly

[belinda]

CONCLUSIONS

At the end of the experiment the results were recorded and analysed. As can be seen from the third table the results obtained were no better than chance would have provided. Although only a short test was done, the results do not bode well for the reliability of water dowsing with metal wires.

After the results were made known, Ms. C was surprised, and unable to think why she had not performed as she expected. That evening, she did comment that she thought there may have been some interference with drops of water still left in the bottles from phase 2, which were also used in phase 3, however a quick glance at the tables shows that this would seem to have only affected one possible bottles, with Ms. C dowsing it incorrectly (as being full- bottle 9.

I would like to extend my thanks to Ms. C. for cheerfully participating in this experiment – and also to the participants on the JREF forum boards who offered support and advice on experimental design.

[belinda]

just a quick last note - sorry about the tables - I couldn't get them to port into the forums properly so I used dowsed correctly/incorrectly instead. Hope it's clear.:D

[sf108]

I apologise for my assumption, but I've been following these forums for awhile, and typically, a lot of bs goes on here that eventually fizzles from an exciting start.

Thanks Belinda for your efforts in this experiment.

May I ask, was Ms C.'s husband in anyway present when Phase 3 occurred? If so, he may have inadvertedly helped/interfered with his wife's performance.?

I also see the same pattern of excuses that failed participants give. If immediately they find results that do not correspond to their usual success rates, they start questioning the protocols and rules and such. Kind of a bad sport...

Other than that, I guess Ms C. was willing to be tested, agreed with the protocols, got expected results as per chance, which is a good conclusion for us. Thx.

[Ashles]

Thanks for that Belinda. A very simple, very clear test and still chance is the result.

Also, how would a few drops of water affect the result - surely soil contains a few drops of water most of the time and dowsers never complain about that. Also her own body would contain rather a lot of water.

Again cheers for using your private time for this test - as I mentioned earlier, in doing so you have probably saves the Australian Sceptics lots of time and testing.

Regards also to your partner - hope the knee heals fine.

[EHocking]

Originally posted by Ashles
Thanks for that Belinda. A very simple, very clear test and still chance is the result.

Also, how would a few drops of water affect the result - surely soil contains a few drops of water most of the time and dowsers never complain about that. Also her own body would contain rather a lot of water.

Again cheers for using your private time for this test - as I mentioned earlier, in doing so you have probably saves the Australian Sceptics lots of time and testing.

Regards also to your partner - hope the knee heals fine. Just piping up to add my "m3 too".
I guess Aus Sceptics and JREF etc would be quite envious of you being able to find a cooperative "challenger". Your experiment shows also that tests do not need to be elaborate in order to demonstrate a clear result. I guess it's only when one side or the other starts dodging and weaving that protocols get intricate and negotiations blow up into an unresolvable exchange.

Did the experiment give your dowser friend pause to consider the validity of dowsing? I know that this was not the objective of the test, but I'd be interested whether any germ of doubt has been planted by you?

(edited to add) Glad to hear your partner is going to be OK and is on the mend.

[Randi]

All would depend on the parameters of the test you conduct....

Randi -- from Germany

[belinda]

Originally posted by EHocking
Did the experiment give your dowser friend pause to consider the validity of dowsing? I know that this was not the objective of the test, but I'd be interested whether any germ of doubt has been planted by you?

I spoke to her over the weekend...she says she still thinks she can dowse - 10 years leaves quite a mark I guess - but she is more willing to look at some of the stuff I have been wanting to show her - eg info about previous dowsing testing by Aus Skeptics etc and other general skeptic info. (My personal fave is Sagan's Candle in the Dark )



Originally posted by Randi
All would depend on the parameters of the test you conduct....

Wow I feel really priviliged...Randi has actually read something I wrote! :)