Explain Water divining

[The Excession]

TheHeretic said:

The Excession said:

Back office or out in the field?

In the field.

It's my understanding that most of them work back office with the maps.... which is going to open another huge can off woo woo worms

[TheHeretic]

The Excession said:

t's my understanding that most of them work back office with the maps.... which is going to open another huge can off woo woo worms

You are right... It will. How on earth are they going to detect something that is supposed to have a physical effect, without being there, or being able to direct it? Utter woo, I'm afraid.

(I do wonder if I had answered in the office, would the answer have been "they work in the field"?)

PS, even in the office, in all my time in the oil exploration field, I have never heard of anyone using dowsing.

[The Excession]

TheHeretic said:

(I do wonder if I had answered in the office, would the answer have been "they work in the field"?)

You sceptic you!

TheHeretic said:

PS, even in the office, in all my time in the oil exploration field, I have never heard of anyone using dowsing.

Maybe you could ask around a bit?

[TheHeretic]

The Excession said:

aybe you could ask around a bit?

Trust me... Word would spread quite quickly, and I spent my fair share of time at the office.

[carmonk]

Ah, pendulum dowsing - not just woo but mega-woo. If woo is just something for which there is no evidence and would require new avenues of physics to describe its mechanisms, mega woo is something for which you couldn't even dream up an explanation if you were high on DMT and taking woo lessons in a sensory deprivation tank.

[Robb F]

TheHeretic said:

Trust me... Word would spread quite quickly, and I spent my fair share of time at the office.

They would also be the richest man in the world.

[The Excession]

Robb F said:

They would also be the richest man in the world.

Yep
Doh!
fk
I hadn't though of that. Back to my cave then.....

[Engineer1]

Shaolin said:

Simpo Two said:

Dowsing is less vague. Bury a water pipe under the ground and see if the subject can find it. They will either succeed or fail.

There's so much ground water and so many leaking pipes in the UK though that it would be difficult not to succeed enough times to make it seem like you were really doing what you were doing. Add to that the real dowsing skills of looking at the lie of the land, vegetation changes, exposed rocks etc. and it's a charlatans charter.

Maybe if they could do it in a country where water was scarce it would be of more use.

Precisely look at a map, look at the land then either consciously or unconsciously pick up on the outward signs of what ever you are searching for, then have a suitably vague area of effect and you can be close enough to register a hit. I say consciously or unconsciously as not all dowzers will be legit some will be using the sticks as a prop, that covers their ability to read the land.

[Ali G]

The Excession said:

Ali G said:

And that's the problem. You would not consider this to be 'woo'.

However, I suspect you would not be able to perform under test conditions.

So it must all be crap!

I don't think that's entirely fair, I think there may be something in/to it. Either that or mineral prostecting companies wouldn't employ these people, they'd just point at the map and flip a coin.

I think it merits further investigation and I'm keeping an open mind about it.

I really don't believe that if an understanding is found it will be anything woo. I'd be far more inclined to believe that the rods or pendulums used in dowsing are merely an amplifier for some type of neurological signal that some people seem able to tune to aspects of the environment.

Oops!

I was aiming for 'irony' but failed..

As per later posts, anything to do with dowsing on maps must be bowlocks 'though - I can only entertain the possibility of some form of physical detection by humans of electromagnetic fields altered by flowing water or electricity..

[hairykrishna]

Dowsing's just the ideomotor effect. It 'works in the right conditions' if those right conditions are that you know where the thing you're dowsing for is already. Nobody has ever demonstrated otherwise in controlled conditions.

[silvagod]

I seem to recall reading somewhere, in a book, (yes it was THAT long ago) that water divining relies on a moving source and that magnetic fields are sometinhg to do with it. That last bit might be my imagination.

If that's the case, then the 'controlled' tests would fail, especially the Dawkins one as the water is not only still but it a plastic bottle!!

/tinfoil hat

[ZeeTacoe]

silvagod said:

I seem to recall reading somewhere, in a book, (yes it was THAT long ago) that water divining relies on a moving source and that magnetic fields are sometinhg to do with it. That last bit might be my imagination.

If that's the case, then the 'controlled' tests would fail, especially the Dawkins one as the water is not only still but it a plastic bottle!!

/tinfoil hat

Well apart from the one with the water running through drainage pipes

[deeen]

MODS please move this to the "Not Science" forum. It's in the "Not science" wiki.

[silvagod]

ZeeTacoe said:

Well apart from the one with the water running through drainage pipes

Didn't see that one...I did say it was a long time ago and part of my imagination!

[silvagod]

deeen said:

MODS please move this to the "Not Science" forum. It's in the "Not science" wiki.

Oh for goodness sake....'I don't believe it, it's not in a book, it makes me feel weird'

All science was like this at some point in history!!

ETA that's not a dig at you personally, more to the 'wiki'

Edited by silvagod on Thursday 2nd February 23:17

[tank slapper]

silvagod said:

Oh for goodness sake....'I don't believe it, it's not in a book, it makes me feel weird'

All science was like this at some point in history!!

You have fundamentally missed the point. It is not that what is now mainstream science was once rejected, but that it is now mainstream science because there is evidence for it. It's nothing to do with feelings about something, but that those things have no evidential basis whatsoever.

[Hilts]

Mods move this...mods move that

Why don't you all relax and if you don't like a topic don't open it.

I think science has a job to do sometimes in explaining exactly WHY the more off-the-wall stuff is wrong, if it is wrong.

[Robb F]

silvagod said:

Oh for goodness sake....'I don't believe it, it's not in a book, it makes me feel weird'

All science was like this at some point in history!!

But then it was proved.

[carmonk]

deeen said:

MODS please move this to the "Not Science" forum. It's in the "Not science" wiki.

But if I'm not wrong you've only posted in 3 threads on the Science forum since it was created and all three have been woo threads

My point is that I think any claim for which the scientific method can be applied should be left here, and that includes water divining. Woo is an excellent way to demonstrate how the scientific method works and these threads can be a good opportunity to show people the problems inherent in fuzzy thinking and maybe even disabuse some people of their peculiar notions.

[The Excession]

^^^

Mmmm mmmm mmm mmmmm I'm loving this