Explain Water divining
Discussion
tank slapper said:
So how come not even one person has been able to reliably do it under test? Are you suggesting that every single person who is a diviner is so weak minded and pathetic that they are unable to do it when someone is watching? You are clutching at straws with that one I think.
If this were a real effect, then there would be at least one individual who is able to do it under test conditions. In that video clip I posted, the diviners were all quite happy and confident undertaking the test, and it was only when they were shown to be no better than chance did the excuses start coming out.
I'm just keeping an open mind on this one!If this were a real effect, then there would be at least one individual who is able to do it under test conditions. In that video clip I posted, the diviners were all quite happy and confident undertaking the test, and it was only when they were shown to be no better than chance did the excuses start coming out.
Clearly, there is no current sceintific understanding of it, and as you point out, experimental evidence should rule this out as a phenomenon worth researching further.
It's a technique that is used commercially to find borehole sites for private water supplies quite commonly in rural Scotland. Often a several thousand pound borehole decision is taken on the basis of it. I know a divining contractor who pretty much has a 100% hit rate on borehole sites even to the point of being able to say how far down the source is. I am a resolutely scientific/engineering minded person and don't have a physical or scientific explanation for it but my father worked with this guy on a consulting basis for a number of years and his results speak for themselves.....he was regularly engaged by large engineering/project consultants in rural Scotland to locate optimum borehole sites where others trusting to chance/judging based on terrain had failed to find a source.
Steve996 said:
It's a technique that is used commercially to find borehole sites for private water supplies quite commonly in rural Scotland. Often a several thousand pound borehole decision is taken on the basis of it. I know a divining contractor who pretty much has a 100% hit rate on borehole sites even to the point of being able to say how far down the source is. I am a resolutely scientific/engineering minded person and don't have a physical or scientific explanation for it but my father worked with this guy on a consulting basis for a number of years and his results speak for themselves.....he was regularly engaged by large engineering/project consultants in rural Scotland to locate optimum borehole sites where others trusting to chance/judging based on terrain had failed to find a source.
You should point him to Randi and his prize.Steve996 said:
It's a technique that is used commercially to find borehole sites for private water supplies quite commonly in rural Scotland. Often a several thousand pound borehole decision is taken on the basis of it. I know a divining contractor who pretty much has a 100% hit rate on borehole sites even to the point of being able to say how far down the source is. I am a resolutely scientific/engineering minded person and don't have a physical or scientific explanation for it but my father worked with this guy on a consulting basis for a number of years and his results speak for themselves.....he was regularly engaged by large engineering/project consultants in rural Scotland to locate optimum borehole sites where others trusting to chance/judging based on terrain had failed to find a source.
How do you know he had a 100% hit rate? Because he told you?Anecdotal evidence does not take the place of replicable results, nobody has yet performed this feat with any level of observability and replicability.
Watch the video on the first page with Dawkins in it, it's pretty conclusive.
TheHeretic said:
You should point him to Randi and his prize.
A glib response, presupposing that diviner in Scotland wants anything to do with Randi (whoever he/she is)However, this is the type of 'evidence' which makes me keep an open mind on this subject.
Just because science cannot explain it, does not mean it does not exist!
freecar said:
How do you know he had a 100% hit rate? Because he told you?
Anecdotal evidence does not take the place of replicable results, nobody has yet performed this feat with any level of observability and replicability.
Watch the video on the first page with Dawkins in it, it's pretty conclusive.
I've been with him probably a 1/2 dozen or so times when site surveys have been done (my old man had a business designing bespoke private water treatment plants for private estates without main water) and I certainly can't personally recall a borehole redrill being needed. Those were only the few times I was directly assisting my old man with his side of the surveys, my old man did many other jobs with this guy over 10-15 years. As I say, I've got no particular issue one way or another here, just letting you know of my limited personal experience of someone who seems to be able to successfuly find water using this technique and people pay him to do it, large civil engineering consultancies don't usually sign cheques without results. Anecdotal evidence does not take the place of replicable results, nobody has yet performed this feat with any level of observability and replicability.
Watch the video on the first page with Dawkins in it, it's pretty conclusive.
Edited by Steve996 on Friday 27th January 22:48
Ali G said:
A glib response, presupposing that diviner in Scotland wants anything to do with Randi (whoever he/she is)
However, this is the type of 'evidence' which makes me keep an open mind on this subject.
Just because science cannot explain it, does not mean it does not exist!
A glib response? Bugger me, that is the least of my glib responses. If you do not k ow who Randi is, how on earth can you say if it is a glib response or not? I suggest if you are going to call someone's response glib, you best not start from a point of ignorance.However, this is the type of 'evidence' which makes me keep an open mind on this subject.
Just because science cannot explain it, does not mean it does not exist!
Ali G said:
Just because science cannot explain it, does not mean it does not exist!
Before you start to look at explanations for an effect, you first have to show that it exists in the first place. Once you have established that with repeatable and properly conducted tests, then you can start looking for a scientific explanation. As divining is still firmly within the realms of anecdote, with no test showing a significant positive result to date, looking for an explanation to the effect would be somewhat premature.TheHeretic said:
A glib response? Bugger me, that is the least of my glib responses. If you do not k ow who Randi is, how on earth can you say if it is a glib response or not? I suggest if you are going to call someone's response glib, you best not start from a point of ignorance.
Stick to the subject!
Ali G said:
Stick to the subject!
Entirely on subject. James RNdi has a prize to anyone who can show these 'supernatural' powers in controlled tests. If, as the chap says, the guy has a 100% record, there is a million dollars waiting for him from Randi. Any other dividers who can prove they can do it should also apply. I fear the prize will remain safe. tank slapper said:
Before you start to look at explanations for an effect, you first have to show that it exists in the first place. Once you have established that with repeatable and properly conducted tests, then you can start looking for a scientific explanation. As divining is still firmly within the realms of anecdote, with no test showing a significant positive result to date, looking for an explanation to the effect would be somewhat premature.
Yup - evidence appears to be anecdotal - but there's a lot of it!As previously stated - I'm keeping an open mind on this one!
TheHeretic said:
Entirely on subject. James RNdi has a prize to anyone who can show these 'supernatural' powers in controlled tests. If, as the chap says, the guy has a 100% record, there is a million dollars waiting for him from Randi. Any other dividers who can prove they can do it should also apply. I fear the prize will remain safe.
You may be right!Ali G said:
Yup - evidence appears to be anecdotal - but there's a lot of it!
But all evidence is not equal. 10000 people all saying "yep, I can do it" has no weight at all in comparison to 1 person who can actually demonstrate it in controlled conditions. The question remains, if there are so many people who can reliably do it, why have none of them demonstrated it?tank slapper said:
But all evidence is not equal. 10000 people all saying "yep, I can do it" has no weight at all in comparison to 1 person who can actually demonstrate it in controlled conditions. The question remains, if there are so many people who can reliably do it, why have none of them demonstrated it?
Agree - hypothesis that you cannot devine would be disproved by the one that could 
There may be no ability to 'divine' at all! But it cannot be proved!
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff