Jump to content

Talk:Dowsing/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Various comments not filed under a topic

"Dowsing is controversial" is one thing being part of the controversy is something else and encyclopedia are not written by skeptics. But because I still believe skeptics can have a brain too, I suggest this reading http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/Dowsing.htm for a starting point ( I know, the link is already there, just click on it )

Your definition of dowsing leaves much to be desired. Your present definition is seriously flawed. As far as your reference to map dowsing as "pseudoscience" is concerned, the author of the current definition evidently doesn't realize that a 'physical' connection is actually not necessary! Strange, admittedly, but that happens to be the way it is! I happen to be a professional water dowser. I have located over three thousand satisfactory water wells over the past thirty years (by the dowsing method). Many of these locations were on sites where numerous dry holes had been drilled previously, and where well drillers and geologists had given up all hope of encountering such supplies, so I do speak with some experience.

James Kuebelbeck St. Joseph, Minnesota USA

So have you applied for James Randi's challenge? there's a million bucks up for grabs! -- Tarquin 10:37 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

Jim Kueblebeck has a [website http://susantom.com/id15.html] if anyone is interested. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of his claims, however. User:JohnJohn Jim is also apparently a contributor to Dowsing Today, a publication put out quarterly by the British Society of Dowsers. [1] User:JohnJohn 10 April 2005.

  • Apparently, in his 25+ years of dowsing, Jim has not been able to take an afternoon off from his regular dowsing activities to cash James Randi's million dollars (which should be a piece of cake for him), to prove once and for all dowsing is real and probable take a Nobel Prize for offering proof of a completely new form of physics! And to prove he's not just stealing people's money, but offering a real service. I'm sure he has a valid excuse for not taking the test and proving his claims, as they all do, though I doubt it will be one we haven't heard before. The American association of professional dowsers has even told their members to stay away from Randi. I wonder what their afraid of? (actually, I don't. They can't do it and they know it. It's that simple).

The ideomotor effect is very convincing; thus, Jim probably does beleive he has a unique skill. It is not fair to assume Jim is liar, although he very well could be. Dowsing is bunk for sure, but not all dowsers are liars. User:JohnJohn 13 April 2005

  • Refusing to be tested when there is convincing evidence that your 'skills' are due to selfdeception comes pretty close to being a liar in my book. There is a limit and saying that 'yes, I know that all those other dowsers who ever got tested all failed, but I'm different and I don't need a test to know I'm the real thing' is not good enough when you're a professional. When you're asking people money for a service you better be sure you're offering a real service. Willfully neglecting loads and loads of evidence that you're not comes close enough to theft for me. Amateur dowsers are a different matter. They're 99,9999% honest folks who simply suffer from selfdeception and usually don't even have a clue about what double blind test is. Jim is a pro and as such should know better. He willfully has made a choice somewhere in his life to ignore the facts about dowsing, of which I'm sure he's fully aware.

Yes, I suppose you are right. I really think water dowsers are quite harmless. However bogus it is, the worst that could happen is a person loses some money. What really concerns is medicinal dowsing. Don't be fooled it doesn't work! User:JohnJohn

Mostly agreed. Only problem is, once you believe water dowsing works you might be tempted to believe medical dowsing works as well. My experience is that medical dowsing is usually done with a pendulum, which falls under radiesthesia. If you're experience is different, maybe we should include something on medical dowsing in the article.

No I just recently read a book entitled Dowsing For Beginners. The New Zealand author includes it as a form of dowsing, but medicinal dowsing is more properly called radietheisia. In the book there is a picture of the author using a pendulum to dowse his rather plump cat for tumors; its quite humorous. User:JohnJohn

Hah! Don't tell me water dowsing is harmless. The States (government) of Jersey in the UK has decided to spend £60,000 of our taxpayer's money drilling for water where the British Geological Society has told them there can't be any; they've decided to ignore the BGS and listen to the local Water Divination society instead. Apparently there are giant underground freshwater streams underneath the sea floor along which water is pumped from mainland Europe via the gravitational effects of the moon (which the dowsers appear to think is stronger when the moon is full). --212.9.22.222 13:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What scientific test have been made on dowsing? I know only about the test at Gotland. Could dowsing be considered protoscience since there have been at least one scientific test of the method and there are electronic dowsing equipment available (even if skilled human dowsers still are considered to be better). // Liftarn

There was a rather extensive German study: H. L. König, H. D. Betz: Der Wünschelruten-Report - Wissenschaftlicher Untersuchungsbericht, 1989, ISBN 3-923819-05-6. It wants to be scientific, but when I, as a physicist, looked closer I found it to be deeply flawed. I do not think isolated attempts at scientific studies should qualify a topic as protoscience. The dowsing "scene" as a whole is not anything like scientific and does not seem to want to be, either. It would be good to mention this study in the article, though, but ideally someone (me) should also make specific comments on it. I don't think it is available online. Art Carlson 10:22, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

That "explanation" for how dowsing works with magnetic fields is bollocks. Dowsing is a case if the idiomotor effect.


more on the idiomotor effect & dowsing: http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm

But how does the idiomotor effect work in electronics? // Liftarn
For the sake of argument here, let's pretend there is some other explanaton for dowsing than the idiomotor effect, ok? In that case, the people building the electronic devices that dowse, would need a deeper knowledge of that explanation, or they wouldn't be able to build them. Let's say they built such a device. All they would have to do then is demonstrate that it works, and explain how it works (what inputs it registers, with what, and so forth) in a way that is testable by others. Then they would have another explanation of dowsing... proven! Or the shorter version: I assert such devices are humbug. Feel free to provide more information here on the Gotland experiment, though (e.g. who did it, who verified the results and other relevent things) if you like.
The tests were reported in "Detektering av underjordiska vattendrag - test av tre geofysiska metoder (slingram, VLF, georadar) samt biofysisk metod (slagruta)" by Leif Engh at The university of Lund, the natural geographics institution in 1983. Since it's in Swedish it may be of little use to you, but I managed to find a description in English at http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/betz/14.html I wouldn't call the test that good. The dowsers should probably have been blindfolded, but it's interesting because as far as I know it's the only test that has been carried out on natural ocurring water as opposed to hoses with water.
http://www.dklabs.com/ seems to sell an electronic dowser and I also found it mentioned at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dowse/message/831 don't know if they are any good tough.
Btw, you should look at the definition of protoscience. // Liftarn
It would be useful to me actually, as I happen to be Swedish myself. However, I couldn't find the report you mentioned. Not through google, and not at the local university library :-/
Sorry about the protoscience thing. I didn't know what it was at all, so I glanced at the article and only read the first paragraph, that it is something on its way to become science. Maybe that paragraph should be reworded...

The DKLabs device was debunked by Sandia National Laboratories: see http://web.archive.org/web/20011127184744/http://www.nlectc.org/services/dklanalysis.html. -- Heron

That doesn't sound like any dowsing device. // Liftarn
Except that it consists of two parts, a pointer (containing the "electronics") freely swivelling on a handgrip, with no mechanism to make it move except the idiomotor effect. See http://skepdic.com/refuge/dkl.html. -- Heron

Protoscience

Dowsing does not attempt to follow the scientific method and many dowsers refuse to be test at all (all though there are plenty who will be tested they then have a tendacy to refuse to accept the results).Geni 10:56, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

History

Could it be possible to update a/o expand the history of dowsing to some extent? That section is comprised of several generalizations (e.g. "During the Middle Ages dowsing was associated with the Devil.") followed by a brief and rather formulaic sequence Early Modern dates; the whole is unreferenced and could be developed further. Notcarlos 03:20, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is there any record of dowsers being used to locate land mines? That would indeed be a test for the courage of one's convictions! Gordon Vigurs 17:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the 'External Link': "Dowsing Refences-Famous Advocates"--General Patton had a willow branch cut and given to dowsers to try and find water in North Africa durning WWII. Also, the British had dowsers attempt to look for land mines durning the Falklands War. There is no metion on how succesful they were.204.80.61.10 17:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Is there any documentation for the article's statement that dowsing goes back "thousands of years"? The earliest reference I know is Georgius Agricola in the 1500s. Also, does dowsing come from Europe? I have read of early dowsing in England, France, and Germany, but not in China, India, Africa, or the Americas before the arrival of Europeans.Plazak 19:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You may want to fact-check.

With only a very casual glance through the article I was able to catch an error.

Most dowsers do not use dowsing rods. Pendulums are more commonly used.


can you prove this?Geni 10:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
In Australia forked sticks, willow rods and steel rods are popular. Few dowsers use pendulums. It seems to be a cultural issue regarding what 'instrument' is used. --Maustrauser 13:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


we did this in science class with metal rods. 207.28.162.253 14:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Who is it you're disagreeing with, again?

Dowsing, while being a generally useful skill, is definitely a case of the idiomotor effect. The three books I read on dowsing before I began practicing it , and all of the dowsers that I have met, all agree that the pendulum (or dowsing rod or whatever one is using at the time) is just there to magnify one's own minute movements.

I must be out of the loop, becuase I didn't even know that people thought there was something supernatural moving the device by itself.

Then again, one can expect, in skeptical literature, a complete misrepresentation of the belief that is being "debunked." Either that, or a one-minded focus on the easily-debunked part of the equation, while completely ignoring the rest. Randi's explaination of The Oregon Vortex would be a great example. --Krevency 19:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)Krevency

can we have some context here?Geni 21:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, let me see.

In the book "Magic House" by Theresa Moorey, it says, "Most dowsers accept, quite happily, that they are moving the pendulum themselves. The point is that the subconscious mind causes these little tremors, not the conscious one. And so the movement of the pendulum can tell you what your intuition already knows, deep down." At http://www.alienufoart.com/Pendulums.htm it says "The ideomotor responses have been used in therapy requiring hypnotism and dowsing for decades. The subconscious mind is in charge of all autonomic body functions." At http://www.hlla.com/reference/dowsing.html "So how do we get this sensory information from the unconscious to our conscious mind? That is where dowsing comes in--in particular, the dowsing instrument. Experiments have been performed in muscle testing, in which the subconscious can be programmed to cause involuntary muscles to be strong for a true statement and weak for a false statement."

The moral of the story is this: If someone (James Randi) doesn't take something seriously, don't expect him to do a serious investigation into it, or give accurate background info.--Krevency 23:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dowsing in Construction Industry

I'm so glad I've found this article, by accident through the Tintin page, no less. I have seen dowsing performed by different contractors, as well as municipal employees to locate underground water/sanitary pipes using L-shape rods fashioned from brass to even clothes hangers! But when asked, none of them knew how and why it works. Now I finally know what it's called! These guys trust this method more than your typical electronic machineries using ultra sound to locate buried pipeworks. It's cheap and according to them much more reliable. I have tried it a few times and it does work. One could say there's a bias when one has already a general idea where the pipe is located and just needed the rods to confirm it. Yet in cases where maps are inconsistent with what's underground, the rods did the trick as well.

I doubt dowsers today such as people in construction and public utilities actually aware what "dowsing" is and its hocus-pocus origin. It seems to me more like a ancient knowledge passed down from generation to generation. I wonder how widely known this method is. It would be good to have a discussion of the contempory use of dowsing in the article. --Kvasir 13:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

This site has even dimensions on what divining rods should be and illustration of their use. http://www.constructionwork.com/resources_details_divining_rods.html --Kvasir 13:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Dowsers have failed countless controlled experiments. In all cases, the practitioners usually fair no better than random chance. In fact, in some experiments, the participants in aggregate fair worse than random chance (see the Munich Experiments). Nevertheless, their stories of water found (you have cited one above)are powerfully convincing; that is, until asked to prove their claims. Then they’re all wet. Happy Dowsing! JohnJohn 03:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In fact, in some experiments, the participants in aggregate fair worse than random chance (see the Munich Experiments). Are you suggesting that the results of some experiments cannot be attributed to chance? Sensational! Art Carlson 07:07, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

No, just the opposite: I was referring to an article from the Skeptical Inquirer concerning the Munich Experiments (The dowsers in this experiment were asked to locate a water-filled pipe along a ten-meter test line). The author notes that the participants in aggreagate would have done better by simply making mid-line guesses. In other words, just "guessing" the 5m mark every time. That is what I meant by “fairing worse than random chance.” Sorry for any confusion. JohnJohn 05:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the shear number of tests done means by this stage will expect to see a few tests with slightly odd results (assuming a normal dissribution of results which seems reasonable).16:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Experiments are about reproducibility. If you get a result you don't expect you test for it again, and if it appears you change your theory accordingly. If it doesn't appear, it's a statistical anomaly. Haikupoet 21:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

James Randi

As James Randi's challenge seems to be referenced in many statements in this talk page I am offering some further information, which offers other opinions. I believe in the principle of NPOV both within Wikipedia and in scientific experimentation. I further believe that James Randi's absolute dismissal of all paranormal evidence put forward by highly qualified scientists demonstrates he does not believe in fair, neural or balanced science. If James Randi is indeed a scientist I would be grateful to see some reference to this as I feel this would help the case for his credibility. Solar 18:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fqNueGGP_uE 83.70.160.10 01:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Randi is a magician, not a scientist. That does not necessarily make him knowledgeable about the ins and outs of science, but what it does is give him an exceptionally good bullshit detector because he either knows all the tricks or can figure them out. Apart from some people who find him a bit too much of a zealot, virtually all of those who oppose him are people who have some kind of vested interest in the paranormal, whether they're self-deluded or knowing frauds (I suspect there are far more of the former than the latter). Look, Randi's way of doing things is to evaluate a claim and then come up with a test agreeable to both parties involved. The fact is that when the paranormal is exposed to scientific scrutiny, with controls for fraud and unconscious cueing, it doesn't stand up at all; the only times "solid" paranormal evidence has been obtained is when experimental controls were relaxed to a degree that would be unacceptable in any other form of laboratory trial. Haikupoet 21:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There are characteristics of claims of ghosts and also of breatharians that make them difficult to test. In contrast dowsing is relatively easy to test (depending on the exact claims made by the dowser). Do you have specific criticisms of Randi's million dollar challenge with respect to dowsing? Randi is not a scientist, but I am. Would you care to discuss the scientific evidence on the veracity of dowsing with me? Art Carlson 21:22, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Randi's article on dowsing is at The matter of dowsing. The million-dollar challenge is formulated in such a way as to be scrupulously fair. Randi himself is not involved in any of the judging, and the JREF will work with the claimant to come up with a test which both sides agree upon and should be able to objectively demonstrate that the claimant can do what they say they can. So far, nobody has managed to progress past the preliminary stages simply because they cannot demonstrate their ability under strictly controlled conditions. --StoatBringer 09:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

grammar...

 the grammar of this page leaves much to be desired...

The difference between skeptics and believers is that the skeptics believe the small movements arise from the expectations of the dowser, while believers believe that...

There was a sort of slant to this article. A study that seemed to support dowsing is not identified (even if it came from a peer reviewed journal while those that dismissed dowsing were given a more impressive presentation. The rhetoric is fairly obvious (and I don't even believe in dowsing). Oh, and the grammar needs a little work. Gingermint (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Scrying

I would like to invite editors on this page to comment on a discussion taking place at talk:Scrying, a user there has stated that Dowsing is a form of Scrying, I would very much like to see further comments on this definition. Thanks - Solar 09:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Sydney test analyzed

I've nothing against a more detailed look at the statistics, but the suggested edit is also "of dubious mathematical validity". The chance of the water results may have been 1 in a hundred, but the chance that some one of the three tests would yield results at the 0.01 level is significantly larger. (I suppose 1 in 33.) Also, it would be helpful to have a reference to Arthur C. Clarke's statement, among other things to check whether they have been taken out of context. --Art Carlson 14:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Really?

The recent addition to the intro - dowsing is also used in attempts to predict the future, or to simply answer questions - lacks any supporting cite/ref. Google didn't reveal any significant support for that statement. If no-one objects I will remove it. Cheers. Moriori 19:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Information dowsing

dowsing is also used in attempts to predict the future, or to simply answer questions

This is known as "information dowsing," and has become a VERY popular use of dowsing. Probably now more popular than water dowsing. I agree that this statement needs additional support, and I plan to add that. However, it should be a part of the introductory paragraph.

I don't know about predicting the future, in that area you must establish you definition of fate. The future you can not change?, or what will happen if you continue to live the way you do now. Anyway, for asking questions, with a pendulum if the answer is yes, the pendulum will swing clockwise, if no, it will swing counter. Rods, yes=swing out, no=swing in or cross.

Yes/no pendulum indications vary among individuals. I get "yes" as clockwise circling, and "no" as a linear swing. Dichotomy or dualistic thinking can fool one. Even "yes" and "no" can come strongly or weakly, quickly or irresolutely, for example. Other swing patterns come less often, and say different things. Subjective interpretation makes it difficult to test in front of mmm, unbelievers. 151.203.65.245 16:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Repeated tests under controlled conditions have not supported this claim.

I find it unfair to debunk the practice in the introductory paragraph. The first sentence describes dowsing as "controversial" which is sufficient for the introduction. There is plenty of room throughout the rest of the article to make a case against the efficacy of dowsing.

To be perfectly honest, this whole entry on dowsing needs a lot of work. Some of the statements are flatly false (Most claim to be able to detect moving water... really??), many of the concepts desperately need clarification, and the grammar generally is poor.

--Carl

  • On the matter of water dowsing, the JREF states that "Water dowsers are by far the most common variety we have encountered, and they, too, exhibit a wide spectrum of claims. Some only look for fresh/potable water. With some, it must be moving water. Some cannot detect water in pipes, only "natural" water. Most say they can tell how far down the water is, and at what rate it will be delivered, once tapped. Water dowsers as well as some less specialized say they can be thrown off by magnetic fields, nearby electricity, machinery, buried meteorites, masses of metal, or other underground rivers that intersect their path." ( http://www.randi.org/library/dowsing/index.html ). One of the tests they performed was with a group of dowsers who all specifically claimed to be able to detect moving water. --StoatBringer 01:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree that JREF likely has been exposed mostly to water dowsing. It is still a VERY popular form of dowsing, especially amongst older dowsers. But with "new agers," dowsing has rapidly expanded into other realms. Probably 30-40 years ago, water dowsing was by far the most popular application, and I might even agree that a majority of water dowsers believed they could detect moving water. But today, it's very possible that water dowsing is no longer the largest slice of the dowsing pie, and the rest of the pie certainly make no claims about detecting moving water. -Carl --Geotech 01:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Einstein Quote

I removed:

Albert Einstein, one proponent of dowsing, said:

"I know very well that many scientists consider dowsing as they do astrology, as a type of ancient superstition. According to my conviction this is, however, unjustified. The dowsing rod is a simple instrument which shows the reaction of the human nervous system to certain factors which are unknown to us at this time." [2]

Because it is not adequately referenced. This quote is all over the internet on pro-dowsing sites but none of them state where Einstein said this. Can the proponent for this claim state a book or an article or something that can be checked, rather than simply another pro-divining website? If this can be referenced properly then I am quite happy for it to be returned to the article. Maustrauser 12:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Excuse me, I have never contributed to wikipedia before. (I am the one who added the quote). Does wikipedia have a page about how to cite quotes properly? I looked for it but did not see one. I have seen other quotes on wikipedia referenced in that way so I thought it would be ok. I have a book that also quotes him as saying that but I'm sure you would consider it "pro-dowsing". Would a reference to a book about dowsing be adequate?

199.46.198.234 16:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)AS

Welcome to Wikipedia and enjoy the intelligent (and less intelligent) debates. Lots of people reference other websites as 'proof' of a fact. The problem arises when a website simply copies another person's statement (even if completely made up) and it then becomes the truth. The reference I am after is one that states that "Albert Einstein in a speech to the Gozongo Science Society on 12 September 1948 said..." or even better, Einstein in his book "Dowsing, a relativatists guide to the Esoteric" (p26), wrote: "blah blah blah". Otherwise, how can anyone really know what Einstein said. The quote may have been made up as a joke and now because it is all over the internet is considered the truth. Does your 'pro-dowsing' book indicate where Einstein said or wrote this comment? Maustrauser 22:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I looked on Google Print, and the earliest reference I could find tracked back to "Beginner's handbook to Dowsing, by Joseph Baum, Crown Publishing Inc, New York, 1974, page 6". Anyone got a copy? MickWest 22:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Einstein was a neurologist. Dukemeiser 02:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
so it seems that this will be a very slow process to add simple information to wiki the free....

Einstein Letters

Now you can put it back ... anything else you need ?

Reference from photocopies of Einsteins correspondence 

4 February 1946

Mr. Herman E. Peisach                                 
32 Flax Hill Road
South Norwalk, Conn.

Dear Sir:
I am a novice in this field that we are discussing. However, I would
like to have you send me the reports. Even if I have no connection with
scientist in this field, a recommendation from me could perhaps be
effective, so that this subject could receive more attention.

Very truly yours,
A. Einstein

The above letter was received by Mr. Peisach, with whose kind permission it, and the one below, are published, in reply to a letter seeking Professor Einstein's views on his father's papers. Peisach senior, now deceased, was a physician in Germany who had learned to use the dowsing rod for diagnostic purposes, and had become interested in the influence of radiation from water and mineral veins on health. Mr. Peisach wrote us that by chance he had tuned his TV set to the "Look at Us" program on the Danville Convention, and generously referred us to this correspondence. After forwarding the reports to Princeton, he received the following reply. Translations are courtesy of Tell Ehardt and the German Department of Villanova University. 


Dear Mr. Peisach:                                                        15 February 1946

I read with great interest the reports from your father and I think
that they deserve attention. To publish them in the daily press would have
little effect. However, if you send these reports to a medical journal, you
will have to re-write some of the other aspects that are not really
pertinent to this matter.

I know very well that many scientists consider dowsing as they do
astrology,as a type of ancient superstition. According to my conviction
this is, however,unjustified. The dowsing rod is a simple instrument which
shows the reaction of the human nervous system to certain factors which are
unknown to us at this time. 

That the same circumstances can bring forth
nervous difficulties in breathing appears entirely plausible. However, I do
not think there is any connection with the occurrence of cancer. This
latter connection, if true, would not be easy to prove with supporting
statistics.

If you submit the carefully revised reports to a medical journal you
may attach a copy of my letter, so that this matter will receive the
attention I feel it deserves.

Very truly yours,
A. Einstein

The Einstein Letters

Now you can reference the entire letter . TY I do not make claims only state facts and back them up. I am not the original editor of cited reference. _________________________________________________________________________________________ unsigned post by User_Talk:68.184.6.80 reformatted and moved here in subsection, by --Otheus 17:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Are the original photocopies available? There's a problem in that Peisach says something about seeing something on TV in 1946. This is incredibly unlikely. See TV to understand why. It puts the whole context in doubt, and thus all the letters are more subject. Furthermore, the best we could probably say from this is, "Einstein considered it possible that unknown physiological factors caused dowsing to work." with the supporting quote in a reference. --Otheus 17:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________________________

You misread the copy. The SON of the Father , Mr Piesach, saw a program on tv that led him to fwd photcopies and translations to the ASD. Add the reference and the link as you see fit to our newly revising article. ty This type of cooberative information that dreams

are made from . This has been bothering alot af people for a long time.

I am aware of continually unreferenced material be redistributed all over the internet. I am on your side of accurate referenced materials. You were not expecting such a detailed refernce. Thank you for your comments . Put it back in the article as you see fit. Lets Move fed and not get bogged down. I am here to help, because of circumstance you will be writing/editing this article and the world and wiki will be proud of you.

__________________________________________________________________________

Discovery channel documentary

Did anyone see that documentary on the Discovery Channel, maybe... oh, five years back? I seem to remember it pretty much proving how dowsing works in a controlled experiment, as well as showing what happens within the body to make the rod dip down. They also did a test where they locked a person who claimed to be a dowser in a closed van (with no windows), and drove the van to an area where they knew to be underground water - then they drove slowly back and forth over the area. The person's dowsing stick dipped at the right place, despite the fact that she/he had no idea where she/he was.

Does anyone know what I'm talking about? I can't remember the name, but I rather thought that dowsing was a scientifically established fact by now, since that film was filmed rather a while back, and seemed to be respectable - I'm surprised to see that it's not. Esn 06:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's Get the Definition Right

POV tag

I was shocked when I read this article as it seems to totally disprove dowsing, when its really going off the wrong definition. Additionally, this article does not present this topic from a NPOV. I myself have water witched and seen amazing results, but after reading this article, I feel like a wack job. Here are four points I would like to bring up with issues in this article 1-In the dowsing experiments that proved "dowsing" wrong, they tested whether or not the dowsers could detect the DEPTH of the water, NOT the fact that they could DETECT it. I've literally seen hundreds of people successfully witch of which none of those had any idea of depth. Water witching doesn't necessarily mean you are detecting the depth, just the fact that you detect anything. 2-the "Proposed explanations" sections is of NO use. There is absolutely no attempt at a real explanation, instead this section just says people who are amateur dowsers can't explain dowsing. Oh thanks, thats informative. (excuse my sarcasm). That section either needs to be removed or some type of real explanation needs to be cited. 3-Do we have ALL the studies??? "There have been many investigations of the veracity of dowsing. The positive studies were mostly informal and did not meet scientific standards. These studies failed to exclude alternate explanations such as environmental clues in open terrain. A well-designed study would have blinded the dowser and the experimenter. Furthermore, any study must be carefully analyzed for statistical significance before conclusions can be drawn." The gentleman's discussion point above mine would completely disprove this statement. Furthermore, we cannot simply conjure up what we think the experiment should entail here. This is Wikipedia. We must cite!!! 4-Finally the statement "Most dowsers look for things hidden under the surface of the earth. Most claim to be able to detect moving water. Some believe they can find standing water, oil, precious metals, base metals, minerals, lost items, or people. Many dowsers believe their success rate is near perfect, over 90 per cent, but none have ever done better than chance in controlled tests" is simply incorrect. The beginning of this statement talks about people being able to detect water and the end of the statement disproves people from detecting depths in experiments, making it sound like the ability to detect has been disproven, which this article never shows.

Basically the whole thing to me is frustrating. This is an interesting topic because dowsing does work, I've seen it too many times. The key here is the definition of dowsing. This article contradicts itself as to the definition of dowsing. It sometimes says it is the ability to detect depth of water (incorrect) and sometimes says is the ability to just detect it at all. The definition of dowsing is simply just the ability to detect. And the studies this article present simply do not discredit dowsers from DETECTING water. They only discredit the ability of dowsers to detect the depth, which I'm not refuting. Chupper 02:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. Let me point out that Wikipedia does not publish original research. Everything must be cited to reliable sources. Tom Harrison Talk 02:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't agree with you more Tom. I must apologize for including "original research" because I felt including that distracted from the point of my discussion topic. (I was just adding to show my surprise, nothing more) The important thing I was trying to point out was the definition of dowsing varies through the article. In the introduction we say dowsing is the ability to just detect the existence and in other areas of the article we say dowsing as the ability to detect DEPTH and/or DIRECTION has been disproven. Which is it? Chupper 03:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Some say they can find water, some say they can tell if it's moving or still, and how deep it is. Some say they can find minerals, or lost items. Some have to be out in the field, some just use a map and a pendulum. Some say they can detect ley lines, others say ley lines are nonsense. This isn't variance in the definition, it's variation in the claims people make. Anyway, I'm going out now. I'll check in again later. Tom Harrison Talk 03:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I think there might be some confusion on the description of locating anomalies with divining rods or whatever you would like to call them. First and foremost it detects an alteration in the normal construct of the earth, so if an area has been leveled then the whole area will have anomalous "hits" with your rods. If you truly want to determine if someone knows how to dowse then just create one alteration and have him or her find it. Also a couple of inches deep is in the area of crust and rocks, so you should not find an alteration that shallow,it should be somewhere around 18 inches to 20 or more feet in depth. Next would be determining a depth which can be difficult to do if there is a congestion of changes underground, but the Pythagorean theorum helps with that. You have a centerpoint with a 90 degree angle on your rod when you supposedly are directly over your pipe or cable. If you walk back to your 45 degree angle point on each side you should have a fair representation of a depth. To double check yourself you can sometimes get an additional anomalous hit the same distance from it as your double 45 degree.

Shane 30 June 2006 Utility locator of 13+ years P.S. I personally prefer Electromagnetic Induction and Ground Penetrating Radar but some occasions call for other means.

Some say they can find water, some say they can tell if it's moving or still, and how deep it is. Some say they can find minerals, or lost items. Some have to be out in the field, some just use a map and a pendulum. Some say they can detect ley lines, others say ley lines are nonsense. This isn't variance in the definition, it's variation in the claims people make. Anyway, I'm going out now. I'll check in again later. Tom Harrison Talk 03:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

@ Tom - I have issues with the first few sentences and organization of the article. Later today I may make some changes to the article (not adding new citations) but simply trying to present the topic from a more NPOV. (i.e. sections need to stay on topic, highlight the differences in dowsing [what can be detected, how it can be detected]) Specific Example - "Dowsing (also called divining or Water witching) is a generic term for a set of practices which proponents claim the ability to find water, metals, gem stones, and hidden objects, usually by fluctuations of some apparatus (typically a rod, rods, or pendulum) over a piece of land. Others believe some claim to need no apparatus at all but to 'feel' reactions. Repeated tests under controlled conditions have not supported claims, but they continue to be believed by many people." The problem I have here is it sounds like all people believe in being able to detect everything, which is not the case. Additionally repeated tests under controlled conditions have only not supported claims of depth detection, not simply detection. When I make the changes, let me know your thoughts. (this sure is an interesting topic!) Chupper 16:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Is the neutrality of the article still disupted? I don't see anything on here since July 10, which is a long time in wiki time. It seems (to me) that it now complies fairly well with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Pseudoscience . If there are still areas of conflict, can they be fixed? Is it time to remove the POV tag? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the tag for the reasons already stated. Further I suggest to remove the "Sidney" subsection, as it seems to be the least reliable (lowest numbers etc) study mentioned. --Pjacobi 13:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like we independantly came to the same conclusion. I removed the "Sydney" stuff when I looked at the article since it wasn't a scientific study and none of the criticisms were verified so it would not have been possible to do a proper section on it. Jefffire 14:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Prominent Dowsers Past an Present

This section contained many redlinks. Since the non-existence of a Wikipedia article on a subject doesn't testify to that person's prominence, not to mention problems with verifiability, I've removed the redlinks and placed them below. The list was too long to begin with, anyway. --BillC 21:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The Kid from Down Under ... What he has to say is probably worth more than any adult that has edited thus far.

I propose that personal experience category be inserted as empirical proof by experience. quote: i don't know about anyone else, but i am 14 and live on a farm in australia, where we are in serious drought at the moment. not only are my parents professional water diviners, who can tell depth and quantity of the water by how much the bars dip and how fast. I can also divine, though not as skillfully. i have first hand proof that it exists. i have no doubt it exists. No idea how it works but does that really matter? if the boffins can't explain it that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.225.224 (talk • contribs)


Add: reading the list more carefully, the last two look highly suspect claims to prominence. --BillC 21:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

i don't know about anyone else, but i am 14 and live on a farm in australia, where we are in serious drought at the moment. not only are my parents professional water diviners, who can tell depth and quantity of the water by how much the bars dip and how fast. I can also divine, though not as skillfully. i have first hand proof that it exists. i have no doubt it exists. No idea how it works but does that really matter? if the boffins can't explain it that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.225.224 (talk • contribs)

salt domes

What I find interesting is that very sensitive pendulums are often used by oil companies to find oil within salt domes. Since salt domes are less dense than the surrounding earth, a pendulum's path will lengthen slightly over a salt dome. Could this have something to do with dowsing/divining? 4.242.147.168 18:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Unlikely...the movements of a human body would be more than enough to overcome the effect of any change in ground density. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.95.201 (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is not balanced

This article clearly takes a skeptical point of view and fails to mention the documented successes of famous European dowsers such as Abbé Mermet. The text needs to be more balanced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lu33 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree. I note for example the claim: "Despite scientific refutation[1] of these practices, many people continue to believe in their efficacy.[2]". I followed the reference (1) for this claim and found that the scientific study concluded: "Some few dowsers, in particular tasks, showed an extraordinarily high rate of success, which can scarcely if at all be explained as due to chance ... a real core of dowser-phenomena can be regarded as empirically proven." Hardly a "scientific refutation" more a "scientific confirmation". The scientific refutaion claim, though, is based on a non-scientific article published in a general interest magazine which takes issue with the scientific study. I don't think this is the way real science works.Davkal 00:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have made a temporary amendment to the article to remove the unsupportable POV interpretation pending further investigation of the Munich study (source, peer-review etc.).Davkal 00:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Though I am a skeptic (and former paying member of CSICOP), I also want this article to be as fair and balanced as possible, without "whitewashing" the underlying fact that dowsing is principally (if not definitively) unreliable. I support your inclusion of a translated version of the original study, and of quoting that study's summary.
However, just to clarify, the "POV interpretation" was not mine, but an accurate summary of Enright's position and analysis of the study. Enright has been a published scientific researcher for over 30 years, and even past his late 60's continues to publish. But whatever his credentials, its his conclusions and analysis that are important. Enright's analysis of the Munich summary is correct: By analogy, 6 out of 43 blind men are likely to run into trees at a rate that exceeds chance.
--Otheus 14:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, for everyone here, please review Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. I just did. It likely will have a "skeptical" slant to it, because that's the view accepted by mainstream science. Also cross-reference WP:WEIGHT. --Otheus 14:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an Encyclopedia

Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously, and there's no question about the scientific perspective on dowsing. Dowsing has a history, a following, and perfectly legitimate material for an encyclopedia. The focus of the dowsing article should not be on how skeptics have refuted the dowsers. But note that Wikipedia is trying rate with the best books in the reference section, not the religion or New Age section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.18.221.223 (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

If there is no question about the scientific perspective on dowsing being negative, then we should be able to cite scientific papers in peer-review journals which say this. CSICOP articles are not science, they are not peer-review and they are not renowned for their neutral objective stance. The only scientific investigation cited in the CSI article supported dowsing. That CSI should run an article claiming it was wrong is hardly surprising and does not amount to a scientific response to or refutation of that research. That needs to happen in a peer-review journal.Davkal 13:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Which journal was the Munich study published in? --Minderbinder 13:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, that's what I am trying to check. What we know so far is that the research was carried out under th auspices of the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (which incorporated the Federal Ministry for education and science and the Federal Ministry of Research and Technology). What we don't need to check though, is where the supposed refutation was published. That is, in the general interest magazine of a non-scientific body not renowned for the objectivity.Davkal 13:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Per parity of sources, if the original study wasn't published by a reliable source, it can be refuted by a source of the same quality. And regardless of where it was published, the interpretations of one study by one group of scientists shouldn't be presented in the lead section of an article in a way that makes it sound like Dowsing is generally accepted by scientists. --Minderbinder 13:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

1. I hardly think one article in a small ideologically motivated non-scientific US advocacy organisation's magazine, carries quite the same weight as a major study conducted by the Federal Ministry responsible for science, education, research and technology of a major European/World country. Delusions of grandeur or what!!!

2. The section now reads "While the concept of dowsing is generally not accepted by mainstream scientists". Where is the evidence for this. I followed the link and found that it is merely an unsourced assertion by Enright, published in CSI's non peer-reviewed journal. Where such sweeping statements about current scientific thinking are made, we should at least be able to point to some piece of actual science to back them up. If this is indeed the view of science, or scientists in general, then scientific sources should be easy to find. What we have, once again, is a minority opinion from a idealogically motivated advocacy group being presented as "science". It is no such thing. The truth here is that science has very little to say about dousing and what little it has said recently has been supportive. It may be undue weight to present that as "scientifically accepted" but nobofdy was trying to do this. What is definitiely undue weight is to present a non-scientific position as the mainstream majority view.Davkal 13:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

One will have a hard time finding "scientific papers in peer-review journals" saying

that fire-breathing dragons do not exist, black cats crossing one's path have no significant effect on one's luck, nor that the word "abracadabra" fails to cause magic to happen. What does mainstream science think of dowsing? Try and find a respected university that teaches dowsing in a science or engineering course. They certainly do teach the actual science one would use to find water, oil or other minerals. --Bryangeneolson 02:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Like these you mean [3], [4]Davkal 18:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And more soon to follow no doubt [5]. Happy easter.Davkal 18:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That last is being led by Chris French, by the way. — BillC talk 19:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, and we all know what will happen then. I predict that French presupposes the mechanism for dowsing and tests his own presupposition by testing in a lab rather than testing the actual ability dowsers supposedly have to find water in the real world; I predict he equates dowsing with the paranormal ability to find water rather than simply the ability to find water others can't; I predict that on this basis he finds no evidence of "dowsing"; I predict he concludes with a summary of how people can come to believe in something that doesn't exist; and I predict that his results are trumpeted loudly by his CSI(COP) paymasters.Davkal 01:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
"Per parity of sources, if the original study wasn't published by a reliable source". We aren't in the business of deciding that because a source has published on a fringe topic, it is therefore not a reliable source. I have changed the text to say exactly what the sources can support. Perhaps someone can come up with a statement which represents science as a whole, but that has not yet been done. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
No, we're in the business of deciding whether a source is reliable based on where it was published - in this case do we know where it was published? --Minderbinder 12:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes we know.Davkal 13:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
So if you know, where was it published? And more importantly, why isn't that information in the article? --Minderbinder 14:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Munich study sources

Davkal said above,
"While the concept of dowsing is generally not accepted by mainstream scientists". Where is the evidence for this. I followed the link and found that it is merely an unsourced assertion by Enright, published in CSI's non peer-reviewed journal.'
Enright's analysis of the Betz experiments were originally published in the peer-reviewed Naturwissenschaften. Here is the link to the citation of his earliest paper on the subject. I shall soon be adding the scholarly citations to the article. Still, I cannot find the Betz paper. (The only "H.Betz" found by SpringerLink was published in 1932.) --Otheus 14:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is the home page of the journal the Betz study was published in. Notice the nice, professional layout. Basically, "verein" is a "club" or maybe "committee", or just a group of people with similar interests. "Zeitschrift" essentially means periodical. So this is the Periodical of the Committee of those interested in "GeoBiology". Note that page's prominent image of a dowser. If CSI qualifies as a " small ideologically motivated non-scientific US advocacy organisation's magazine", then what does this qualify as? I propose: "a very small ideologically motivated non-scientific German advocacy organisation's magazine". --Otheus 15:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The Betz study was referred to in that periodical but was itself published by the German Government. So unless the German government qualifies as a small pro-paranormal advocacy group then I think the point still stands. Also, nobody claimed that Enright has only published one article ever, and that this article is in the SI, the point was that Enright's claim that scientists think such-and-such was sourced to the SI and that is not an appropriate source for such a claim.Davkal 00:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me clear some things up. As far as we can tell, the Betz study was not published by the German Government, the way research is published. Rather, it was funded by this particular government bureau, much like the NFS hands out grants and receives reports on what was done in the project. The "Schlussbericht" means "final report" -- it's what the researchers wrote to the government bureau. It's not clear if there was any peer review process other than that. So it's not clear if the point still stands. Moreover, there are no other published papers by these guys as far as we can tell, other than what relates to this topic. So the concept that this paper was reported by scientists and peer-reviewed by scientists is dubious. (Some more comments on that below.) --Otheus 08:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, SI is an appropriate claim for saying what scientists think, but apparently, that will be a very long discussion and might best be put in its own section. --Otheus 08:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, the only Betz paper was published in 1932. Wrong Betz I think, how hard did you look. [6]. You'll also another article which rejects Enright's analysis.Davkal 00:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Wrong Betz. I looked for an "H. Betz" and it came up only with "Hans Betz". But thanks to your tip, I found the 2nd paper Enright refers to, here. It's the only paper in SpringerLink from Betz. Here is the only other paper which refers to Enright's analysis. Here is the PDF of that paper. Unlike peer reviewed papers, its cateogry is "short communications" -- ie, letter to the editor. I'll review it a little later. --Otheus 08:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up: The links to PDFs won't work without $$, which I'm short on right now. If anyone has access and cares to summarize, your help is appreciated. --Otheus 14:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have missed the point entirely. It is not our job to appraise scientific papers, so your suggestion that you will review the paper is a kind offer but completely pointless. The fact is that we have a major scientific study underaken and published by the German ministry for education and research. We have a few papers/letters about that scientific study published in a journal and we have the CSI article cited as the source for further general claims. None of this supports the "despite scientific refutation" claim that was in the article prior to my involvement (ie. the POV version you were pushing), nor the "mainstream science rejects dowsing" claim that you want to put it now. My view has never been that dowsing is a scientifically established and accepted fact. That's why I wrote "scientific evidence for dowsing is inconclusive". That is, the only modern day scientific study undertaken (the German study) found a core of dowsing to have been "emprically poven" and Enright disputes this. Both sides portrayed accurately, rather than the one-sided POV psushing "scientific refutation" judgement you opted for.Davkal 08:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

As above, you insist it was published but don't tell us where. Where (which publication) and when was it published? And again, why do you keep saying it was published, but not putting the publication info in the article? --Minderbinder 12:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
interrupted Wait a minute, Davkal! You were the one who started "appraising" scientific papers! By calling into question CSICOP's (first) claim to be scientific or to represent science, (then) their motives, and (finally) notability, you naturally raised the bar for all publications herein. I would not have looked at the Munich study's authorship or publication history until you cast doubt on using Enright as a source. --Otheus 15:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It was published by the German ministry for Education and Research and is attributed to them in the CSICOP article - to ask which publication is just personal attack removed by Otheus. A short review of it was published in Naturwissenschaften. A previous scientific study ever more in favour of dowsing was published in the JSE (the one that's so laudible a setion all its was set up for the science reported there in the EVP article). Enright wrote a critique of the ministry one in Naturwissenschaften, and a couple of critical responses to Enright were also published there. We therefore have clear grounds for saying "inconclusive" rather than "scientific refutation". We also have no reputable source yet for saying the majority of mainstream scientists reject dowsing. Since nobody is trying to say that dowsing is an established scientific fact, but are merely trying to tone down the "dismissed by science" pseudosceptical rhetoric is it unclear what you want here. You are the one that is going to have to come up with reliable sources if you want to make that claim.Davkal 15:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

interrupted Again, the study was not "published" as is peer-review science. What was published was the authors report to the granting agency -- ie, "you gave us money, here's how we spent it". Do not confuse this with peer-review! Also, if previous studies showed evidence, please add them to the article. I have not heard previous mention of the "JSE" or "EVP article". Finally, the most recent experiment -- the Kessel experiment -- rather conclusively disproved water dowsing. But for interests of fairness, I've changed the text to say that dowsing has never been scientifically proven. --Otheus 15:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a list of publications of Betz.
Not exactly peer-reviewed journals.
Pjacobi 16:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Betz is only one of three authors of the report. And that's not all he has published. Nice ad hominem though, well done.Davkal 16:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not ad hominem. But you're right: it's hard to publish pseudoscience in scientific journals, which is probably why he had to resort to a "complimentary medicine" "jounral" to publish his results. Anyway, this just underscores that while his experimental setup may have been valid, and the raw data he determined is valid, his conclusions were not subject to true peer review. --Otheus 14:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Proof of a negative

The request for peer-reviewed papers exposing dowsing as nonsens is a red herring. You wouldn't find many peer-reviewed papers argueing against the Green Cheese Model of Lunar Composition either. --Pjacobi 16:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but if the only scientific study we so far have says that the moon is so composed, then you had better be able to. Also, we have many scientific theories which say the the moon is composed of something else - and therefore by a simple application of logic we can use that science to contradict the theory. We have nothing like this in the dowsing case either. your argument itself then is a bit of a red nishin. Hard cheese.Davkal 16:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I also note this from your green cheese pseudoargument:

Mainstream science considers the moon's lithosphere to be composed of silicate rock, based on spectrographic observations and retrieved samples. This is incompatible with the Green Cheese Model's claim that it is composed of cheese and mold.

Which seems to be exactly what I was saying just a few seconds ago above. Davkal 16:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

disputed tags

I have added the disputed tags because the only sources for this entire article (apart from one historical reference) come from ideologically motivated groups/individuals well known for their advocacy of scientism (CSICOP and James Randi). These are not neutral sources and any article putting forward their view alone will automatically end up being unbalanced.Davkal 15:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Let us discuss it here and try to get the article to a reliable status. Let me try to summarize your objections:
1. only source (apart from one historical reference) for the article comes from CSICOP
2. CSICOP sources are "not neutral sources" (and related comments about CSICOP).
Okay, I will try to remedy this by
1.  Confirmed changing the references to the Enright's published ones outside of CSI.
2.  Confirmed "balance" the article according to Betz's letter to the same journal
3.  Confirmed Remove mention of Randi, since it's really not that important in the article.
4. Explain why CSICOP must be in an article like this. However, I will do so on your talk page, because ultimately, that's where that discussion belongs.
--Otheus 12:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I also "downgraded" the tag to "neutral" since I am not aware of any "facts" in dispute. --Otheus 14:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So it has now been a very long time since the neutrality tag was placed on this article. Is there still a neutrality problem? Sunray (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hearing nothing, I've removed the tag. Sunray (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Current Dowsing Article Biased and Inaccurate

It is obvious that the Skeptical Organizations are using Wikipedia as a means for promoting their agenda.

I suggest scrap/minimize the article and let it be written over time by those knowlegable in the field.

It is known fact that biased skeptisim is a main factor in holding back the evolution of wo/man kind.

I second all the comments above this and thank the dear reader for caring as much as i do that fair a balanced entry be maintained for Dowsing and Similar .

Let the skeptics edit the Skeptic entry and leave the dowsing definitions to those that have made it their lifes work.

By the way , within the dowsing org i represent, are doctors, lawyers, physicists, research scientists, teachers, engineers, military etc etc. With the climate being of bias and skeptical control, on Wikipedia, none of these highly regarded and knowlegable people would ever consider "playing this game" or contributing.

In a few words skeptics are an energy drain on humanity and the truth that they so desperately seek .

signed one of the above —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.184.6.80 (talk) 05:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Copyright infringement from here. There are major WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV problems with the latest edits. — BillC talk 09:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Bill , thanks for all your help .... Im sure there are major problems but i am sure we can solve them . 1. I am the copyright owner of said article with authors permission. The website quoted is a copyright infringment... but better yet lets get some real dowsing history there and not get bogged down on the details. anything is better than what is currently in the article. If need be i will quote the entire edit and we can take it point by point. The other aspects you mention i am not clear on but boy you folks are hard to please lol. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.184.6.80 (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Formalia

Please don't start discussing paragraphs (and pseudo-removing them) by using HTML comments in the article itself. Bring everything on the talk page. --Pjacobi 15:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be done without bringing it to the talk page, I agree. Here's what I commented out -- I could not find this anywhere in the SI article:
In one series of tests, the dowsers were in a long, movable wagon with no windows. The idea was to recreate conditions as close as possible to the normal working conditions of dowsers — within the limits of scientifically controlled experiments — and to make as few assumptions as possible about the nature of dowsing. The dowsers were asked to identify the position on the floor of the wagon at which they detected a disturbance. The wagon was then moved and they were asked to find the same spot. If they were actually detecting something under the ground, whatever it was and whether or not it was the same thing other dowsers detected, the spot they picked should have been over the same spot on the ground regardless of where the wagon was standing. This setup was remarkable for its generality, although it was too complicated and expensive to be used to test large numbers of dowsers. Within statistical uncertainties, the participants failed to show any dowsing ability in this test.
--Otheus 23:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving Forward with a Responsible Article on Dowsing - Finding Common Ground

Dear Kind Ladies and Gentlemen of Wikipedia,

A warm greeting of mututal information and energy sharing.

As i am becoming more familiar with the SOP please let us begin to construct a meaningful and useful entry for your/our Encyclopedia.

Firstly as there appear's to be a stingent editorial process in place, and this _can_ be a good thing, could those reponsible parties present themselves so that we may have a meeting of the minds.

I will in turn introduce you to the highest levels of scholarly data and individuals in this area of research and knowledge .

Very often we are tasked to learn and report about something that we actually have no practical working experience in , and this can be difficult at best, especially when the subject matter is beyond the average level of human experience .

So if i may act as a casual and actual "representative" of thousands of experts in this field, offer you this unique opportunity to have access to such a knowlege base .

Stating it mildly, the current article is an embarrassment to educated individuals . We [all of us] can do a better job and in turn do service to all that follow and read.

What I suggest is the possibility of presenting Dowsing from two defined perspectives so that an actual representative article can exist . The way it stands now is that the admission flow of info is difficult at best so please advise as to needed reference data and means of acceptable transfer.

If you want to build a house you talk to a builder not a hairdresser. So what i want to know, (figuratively) is what hairdresser wrote this current article ? What I would not do, is accept information on what someone does not know, nor have experience with.

I await your reply , my name nor associations are not what is at issue only the content of wikipedia. I am not a writer , nor scholar, nor do i have an overwhelming need to contribute to this public database, however i do have a good sense of whats right and wrong.

Kind Ladies & Gentlemen of Wikipedia , you have my full undivided attention on this matter until we right this wrong ... using the terms loosely please .

In addition i am offering an educational tool/ reference material for the final editor of said article, that has the insight to present dowsing in a clear and open perspective, as it should, by means of a Dowsing Course DVD, by a renown Remote Viewer and Dowser formerly in the Military PSI Program.

From this point on , once you reply in like [responsible parties , PTB ] i will make sure this dialog has a wide audience for input , including the heads of all major organizations associated with this subject matter,In other words "The experts", so that you have the information and support and references you require for an intelligent entry into the Wikapedia Encyclopedia.

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter .

If there is a heiarchy at Wikipedia then i humbly request that this be escalated to the Cabal for review so that we can resolve an adequate an accurate article for all to benefit from.

I have been silent too long. As our reality is "motivated" by our thoughts and actions, let us take the attitude that this can be done. [ ie if i think it cannot be done that it never shall ]

Where shall we begin ?

Sincerely,

A Concerned Wikipedia Promoter and User ...

  • sometimes it is not a POV , but a matter of one's reality *


cc: ISD ASD BSD CSD CQS TDS SDS NZDS INDS IRDS AUDS ITDS DEDS FRDS SADS RUDS JPDS PLDS

bcc: various other concerned citizens,institutions, scholars,associations, groups and individuals. and professionals, trades —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.184.6.80 (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

First, read the welcome message I posted atop your User talk page. Follow the links to some of the core guidelines and policies.
Second, make sure you read Wikipedia:Sockpuppets. It is not acceptable to to "bring in experts" to Wikipedia for the purpose of editing an article.
Third, see WP:POVFORK. It's not allowed. There are some allowable possibilities, however.
--Otheus 08:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Otheus thank you for your comments.

It has come to my attention that wikipedia is base of good faith and values of editors. I am also aware that there are enought interpretations of wiki "rules" that a good skeptical yet "openminded and fairminded" editor will revert edits for any # of reasons. This has actually in my opinion has damaged the potential for consise entrys to wikipedia. It appears that there are valid concerns for what is called edit wars or what have you. I have neither the time nor patience to engage as such. You appear to have a vested interest in this article and in wikipedia and that is good. I do not possess the wiki skills to edit these articles but would like to work with providing clear unbiased information and references for said article and let those who edit here regularly do so with qualified information.

You say it is not acceptable to bring in experts to edit . I would counter by saying is it acceptable for those unkowlegable about a subject to create content . What is really at the heart of the matter here and elsewhere on wikipedia is that there is a core of editors that tow the line so hard "ethically" that progress will never be made in creating meaningful content .

So from what i see it a pattern of detail chasing and not content building. I am willing to work with you . Are you ready to change your reality ? Will you consider that skeptism by its very nature is detrimental to the nature of the topic and has no place in a dowsing definition or article . At least not as a main focus as it is today. What i am saying is that Dowsing Skeptism has its place in a Skeptism article and not Dowsing . Technically i can create skeptism on any subject , have a crew of diligent editors , and hold the accepted truth hostage as is being done now .

Denial of what is actually taking place is a factor also .

How can we move fwd ?

There will never be consensus as long as ther is uniformed skeptism that permeates. I am removing the existing article for review here [talk] until concensus is reached. I have saved you the trouble of reverting game by only implying above.

Please have a qualifed knowlegable editor create an article because the way it is now wiki rules have created an article that is not worthy of Wiki.

If a non skeptical base article is not present withing a few days time I will start editing by wiki rules the way the skeptial editors are enforcing them.

In other words call for arbitration now. you all know the drill i dont .

Bottom line the article is poor even from a skeptical standpoint.

I am not here to discuss and discuss but to see bold edits made to improve the article . If they are not forthcoming we will help , "by the rules of engagement"

I would rather just see a fair and unbiased article that we all can add intelligently to, as need be.

Keep the comments coming and remove all skeptism slant from article which in turn will keep me from editing as i see fit i lieu of an other positive action.

Post from anonymous IP user

Copied from Footer

Please note: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.

OK, So based on this, Lets get started and do it "your wiki " way. And lets do it painlessly, since there is consensus that skeptism is not dowsing or a diffent topic entirely. Can anyone dispute that the word/act dowsing is an entirely different word/meaning entry from skeptism ? I think not.

If there is any concern that dowsing is not a real existing science then that party please learn (orlearn not) to dowse first, then one is in a balanced position to offer edits. Naturally anyone who cannot [ ie take the trouble to learn and research] dowse or is not open to the possiblity is prone to bias and misinformation.

In the end and overview of article is that there is very little information about dowsing in the article and alot of information about skeptics views on the subject , therefore contrary to POV .

This skeptiaclly bias POV is being maintained by well meaning editors.

This is not in the best interest to Wiki or its readers .

What it is showing me is that individuals are forced to first battle the skeptical PTB before any meaningful information can be disseminated .

I have researched to see that the only way atttention is given to injustice on wiki is thu bad editing so to speak, then arbitration or whatever . so lets go the simple time saving route here an call in the arbitrators or CABAL however is the wiki way.

So for practice and to bring in the cavalry but definately not malicious intent i shall bring the articles in dispute here to talk.... you all fixem up since any editing I would do is obviously futile by experince.

This should be fairly easy.

Entire copies of article removed. This is not how to do it. I have left behind your comments, however.--Otheus 15:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Current Edit Version of Dowsing Article

Possible explanations

The current History is just plain poor and unrepresentative, unreferenced properly to neutral sources, and written obviously by someone who has not done their research . The one refererence is to a skeptical organization . This is not fair and balanced, POV issues, not in the best interst of Wiki readers This entry should be removed till concensus is reached. A simple mainstream history will do in the meantime . START OVER unsigned, anonymous user IP 68.... --Otheus 15:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Dowsing equipment

Uninformed and Misleading

Pendulums for divination and dowsing

Should be Dowsing Tools for a focus Category Poorly written and inaccurate or too specific. Editor has no working knowlege of currently accpted terminology. ie a pad or cloth would be referred to as a "chart". Unreferenced etc

Prominent pendulum dowsers

Improper Titling too specific more issues....

Evidence

I reccomend just leave evidence out of it since that is the core conflict that skeptics hold so dearly . has no relative bearing on this article. This is a POV motivated entry .

Current Minimized Version of Dowsing Article to Rebuild upon [ factually]

Note a reversion for any reason whatsoever with out discussion here first will be considered predatory and in bad faith . I have removed the crap [ read opinionated skeptical, unbalance POV here for review.]

Bring Forth the CABAL.

I moved your article re-write to User:68.184.6.80/sandbox/Dowsing. Feel free to play with it there. --Otheus 15:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

A Working Definition and Intro Header

We can edit from this. add or delete and refernce if needed


Dowsing, generally refers to skills enabling one to detect or locate underground water, metals, minerals, gemstones or other objects,lost or unseen . Map Dowsing refers to this activity using a map and tools from a distant location with a map (see remote viewing) It is also widely used for determining information of varying types. (see uses and applications of dowsing) It can also be used to directly interact and influence subtle energy systems.[ref needed]


Dowsing is also known by other various names and practices . It serves these days as a general term for specific subsciences,arts or skills. Dowsing, Divination, Divining, Radiathesia , Rhabdomancy (Italy), Water Witching, Doodlebugging (Oil), Scrying, Radionics, Reiki,Biolocation (Russia).

Alternatively, dowsing may be defined as the communication of subtle energies and information perceived by one's extended senses and natural intuition with the focused mind through the use of a device and/ or learned response. Information received in this manor is of holographic or quantum in nature, not limited by time and space or the acknowledged physical laws of the universe.

Most commonly, a response is evident from the circular motion or swing of a pendulum or rod or tool in a "controlled" subtle muscle reponse in conjunction with a query.

Most commonly, detection is made through the subtle movement or vibrations of an apparatus, such as a Y-shaped branch, an L-shaped rod, or a pendulum. Some practitioners need no apparatus at all. This is known as deviceless dowsing.

There is now evidence that dowsing is being accepted by the mainstream scientific community with research into Bio and Quantum Physics. [1] Stanford SRI CA

Dowsing History

We can edit from this add/edit/reference


History of Dowsing Dowsing has existed in various forms for thousands of years.[1] The original may have been for divination purposes — to divine the will of the gods, to foretell the future and divine guilt in trials. Dowsing as practiced today probably originated in Germany during the 15th century, when it was used to find metals. The technique spread to England with German miners who came to England to work in the coal mines. During the Middle Ages dowsing was associated with the Devil.(no references of this found) In 1659 dowsing was declared Satanic by the Jesuit Gaspar Schott. In 1701 the Inquisition stopped using the dowsing rod in trials. An extensive book on the history of dowsing was published by Christopher Bird in 1979 under the title of The Divining Hand.

The American Marines and Army using dowsing to locate weapons and tunnels during the Korean War and the Vietnam War. It has also been activly taught and used for landmine detection . [Link To News Articles]

Before 1890, a dowser usually just found water or metal ores, by walking over the actual site and using a tool of some sort - normally a Y-shaped twig cut from a hedge.

The word comes from Cornish "dewsing", from Cornish "Dew", Welsh "Duw", French "Dieu". Close to "divining", which then had the same meaning.

Then the French got clever and started using the pendulum to detect remedies for illness.( See Abe Mermet)

A German doctor, Baron Gustav von Pohl, was maybe the first doctor to use dowsing as part of his practice. He discovered that bands of adverse influence in a place could make people ill, thus starting the "geopathic stress" interest. (see Kathleen Bachler Austria)

In the 1930s "adverse energies" became a major subject of dowsing and location of missing people by dowsing, using maps, became common. As an extension of this, water-diviners began to use maps to start their search, only going to a site to get the fine details and mark the spot for drilling.

Since 1950 dowsing has been used in geology, mining, engineering,law, medicine, water exploration and various other disciplines.

The Ancient art of dowsing has been practiced throughout millennia, although the names used to identify it may have changed in different cultures and eras, the techniques have not.

In 1949, a party of French explorers (while searching for evidence of lost civilizations in the Atlas Mts. of North Africa) stumbled upon a massive system of caverns known as the Tassili Caves, wherein many of the walls were covered with marvelous pre-historic paintings. Among the many fascinating wall murals, they found a remarkable huge wall painting of a man depicting what appears to be holding a forked branch in his hand searching for water, surrounded by a group of admiring tribesmen. These wall murals were carbon dated and found to be a least 8000 years old.

Photographed etchings on 4000 year old temple walls of pharaohs holding devices in their hands resembling dowsing tools. Cairo Museum is holding ceramic pendulums which have been removed from thousand-year old tombs.

In China, there is an etching of Chinese Emperor Yu who ruled China 2500 years ago, and in his hands he holds a rather bulky turn-pronged device that resembles a dowsing device.

Many passages in the Bible allude to dowsing, relating in considerable detail how both Moses and his son, Aaron, used a dowsing device referred to as "the Rod" to locate and bring forth water. In the Old Testament, the Prophet Eziekiel reports that King Nubucadnezzar of Babylon, uncertain as to which city he should attack. Jerusalem the capital of Judah or or Rebath of the Ammonites (today's modern-day Amman, Jordan) directed his dowsers or deviners to select the best target and they chose Jerusalem, leading to its seizure and the long "Babylonian captivity of the Jews".

The Jews learned the ancient art from their captors and in the Old Testament Prophet Hozea wrote: "They now consult their pieces of wood then the wand makes pronouncements from them!"

The historical records of Greece refer to dowsing and the art was widely practiced on the Island of Crete, as early as 400 BC. Researchers have uncovered evidence that the Pytheon Oracle of Delphi used a pendulum to answer the questions posed by her clients, kings, queens, nobility and military commanders who traveled great distances to confer with her.

In this regard, E.S. Cumbie in his fine book entitled, "The Psychometric Pendulum and the Pendulum Board" has this to say about dowsing and the ancient priesthood. "In ancient times, the priesthood felt that the layman did not have the belief, knowledge or training to contact the cosmic mind for enlightenment. So the poor people were forced to rely upon the priests to gain the guidance they sought from a higher source and the priests used dowsing devices to make this contact."

For example, in Ezra 3:63 of the Old Testament, it is written: "The governor told the people not to partake of the most holy food until the priest contacted Urin & Thummin". In Samuel 28:6 it says, "When Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord did not answer either in dreams by the prophets or by Urim & Thymmin". Cumbie is convinced that the words Urim & Thumin referred to dowsing devices which could have supplied crucial information and sometimes refused to do so because the priestly dowser held the wrong attitudes or phrased their questions in an incorrect manner.

The blind Greek poet Homer refers to dowsing as Rhabdomancy, which means Devining Rod in Greek. That same word is still used today in the Italian language to denote dowsing. In his monumental work "The Oddesy" Homer also called the dowsing rod the Caduceus, which was passed from Apollo (or Hermes) to Asclepious, the ancient Greek God of healing. This mystical, legendary staff with its entwined serpents has become the universal symbol of healing, used by medical societies around the planet.

Back in the 1400's, dowsing as we think of it today, was called "Virgula Devine" in Latin which meant dowsing with the rod shape. In Germany, during this period of time, dowsing devices were used extensively by miners seeking mineral ore, who referred to the forked stick as "Deuter" - an umbrella word in German - meaning "to show", "to indicate", "to point out", "to auger", "to strike".

According to Christopher Bird, author of the classic book, "The Divining Hand", no one is absolutely certain of the origin of the verb to dowse". But it seemingly made its first official appearance in 1650 in an essay written by the famous English Philosopher John Locke whose noble writings inspired the framers of our own Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States. In his essay, Locke wrote that by the use of the dowsing rod, one could devise or discover water and precious minerals (such as gold & silver and mineral ore) Locke has appropriated his phrase from the long dead English west country language of Cornwall - where in Cornish Dewsys meant "Goddess", and "Rhod" meant tree branch, and from which he "coined" the phrase - Dowsing Rod.

In the 1700's and 1800's in England, Germany and France various books on mining and engineering referred extensively to dowsing, including the "1747 Mining Dictionary" and again in Bordlase's 1758 "Natural History of Cornwall", and also "The 1831 Quarterly Mining Review". Because the ancient art was widely used by miners in Germany for hundreds of years to locate water and ore deposits, today in that country libraries and museums of natural history, science, mining and engineering, private collections of art and sculptures have displays of woodcarvings, paintings and drawings, porcelain creations, coins, etc ... featuring dowsers holding forked sticks.

Interestingly, London, England's 1912 edition of "Mining Magazine" published the first translation of a Latin Opus into English. It was called "On Metals" in praise of dowsing which had been first published 356 years earlier. The translators were a professional American mining engineer and his wife. The engineer later gained fame and won notoriety as the 31st President of the U.S. -- Herbert Clark Hoover. As Chris Bird notes, "God knows, had President Hoover been an expert dowser himself, he might have predicted, and therefore, prevented the great stock market crash of 1929."

In some of the world's finest libraries (e.g. The Library of Congress, The Widener Library of Harvard, The Sterling Library of Yale) you can find many specialized books on this ancient art .


But as Christopher Bird points out in his "The Divining Hand", ... "throughout history, men and women characterized as diviners, dowsers, soothsayers, seers, mystics, mediums, clairvoyants, shaman, witch doctors, wizards & etc., have developed and practiced arts regarded as divine or demonic (depending on the viewpoint) and are able to answer questions that logical reason could not provide. in essence, these people through self training, diligent practice and a profound knowledge of how the universe really functioned, simply "knew things" via the faculty of what has been called the "hidden senses" or E.S.P.


Far too long

No-one can be reasonably expected to read all this material you have posted to this talk page. For example, this long bibliography you have just added, why not instead just add a link to http://www.geomancy.org/resources/bibliography/dowsing/index.html, which is where you have copied it from (or that site has copied it from your source)? Then the post is much shorter and conveys the same information. Were you aware you have also been posting here material such as the character sets below the edit box? Please remove things like this from above, thank you. — BillC talk 07:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Bill the intent, as requested, was to bring any editing to the talk page. Perhaps i took that too literally lol The references cannot be "seen" at a url for quoting purposes. The references are from the page mentioned and is an associate . for working purposes only, not publishing. I am not aware of the character sets as u mention but feel free to edit out .

I am dropping a load of materials on the jobsite but not building the house... not yet. It is late for me here so i will check in tomm and look for any constructive progress. ty 68.184.6.80 04:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC) a wiki friend

IP User... I have read your very extensive material here. But PLEASE learn how to use talk correctly -- I'm talking about formatting and signing your posts. I do not doubt you have valuable information to add to this page. But you really MUST learn how to use Wikipedia correctly. I posted on your Talk page a welcome message that will point you to various articles you can read. Thank you! --Otheus 08:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Im calling you out Otheus :) How do you want to play it ? I am seeking your cooperation . I have a lot of time and money on my hands to see a decent article placed on Wikipedia for future generations.

You are good at what you do . Use your talents wisely and help. Imagine if you will that one has the ability to see one's every move, read one's every thought,look inside ones's body at the cellular level. Understand one's motivations and See one's birth and witness one's passing. In an instant . With clarity.

You have been most helpful in understanding a microcosm, of what human spiritual evolution is up against, and in fact why the "experiment" is almost over . It is sad and beautiful in the same moment.

It is you and me Otheus. Do I have your editorial cooperation or not ? I will make a bold and beautiful edit as that is the only way to improve and get attention around here :) Thank you and Bill again for your learning assistance and "clean up help" 68.184.6.80 04:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC) a wiki friend

You edited text I made on this talk page—the heading of this section—so that it took a completely different meaning. That the wiki system makes this possible does not mean you should do it. Please don't edit my talk pages edits again. Thank you. — BillC talk 06:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: For Far Too Long this article has been under Skeptical Bias POV Whats up with that ? Sorry bout that Bill, as you can see i am under an intense learning curve.... lets see... three tilda's 68.184.6.80

Evidence

editing to cleanup and expedite article -bringing the garbage to the talk page as requested. feel free to delete this entry this info if proved useful or accurate and not skeptical proproganda can be reintegrated into article elsewhere . 68.184.6.80 a wiki friend

[Cleaned up talk section; removed insert of "Evidence" section of article]--Otheus 19:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


Heres your Possible Explanations ......

needs alot of work.... like a new POV below info has not a clue...... therefore not admittable . 68.184.6.80 03:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC) a wiki friend - neutral dowsing engineer

Yes, it does need a lot of work. Can you modify it without removing it all? --Otheus 19:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible explanations

Skeptics of dowsing and many supporters of it believe dowsing apparatus have no special powers, but merely amplify small imperceptible movements of the hands arising from the expectations of the dowser.[1] This psychological phenomenon is termed the ideomotor effect. Some supporters agree with this explanation, but maintain that the dowser has a subliminal sensitivity to the environment, perhaps via electroception, magnetoception, or telluric currents.[1] These explanations give rise to the classification of dowsing as pseudoscience. Other dowsers[1] cannot explain the source of their powers apart from the paranormal, such as paranormal auras, or as a matter of faith. [citation needed]

Those who believe in dowsing may do so because they severely underestimate the probability of finding water at a given location.[citation needed] A charlatan could tell his gullible listeners that water runs underground in narrow streams, when in fact it is contained in strata of porous rock at various depths (hence the name "water table"). Therefore a water-witch who has an apparently high success rate at finding water may not be any better than someone merely guessing. On the other hand, in some areas underlain by hard rocks, a substantial flow of water might only be obtained if the well intersects a fracture in the otherwise impermeable rock.

Swanson and Houssein

"In 2003, Houssein was dowsed by ... Swanson." That gave me a laugh. I guess what is meant is that he was located through dowsing. :) Otheus 20:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed Swanson's name from the "see also" section as it wasn't wikilinked. There is an article Robert A. Swanson, but I cannot tell if this is the same person. If he is, please wikilink him.--Shantavira|feed me 08:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

dear sir; i would like to clear up this issue. I'm not the robert a. swanson that is with mit. my name is robert a. swanson and after 12 years in the philippines i learned how to dows. i learned how to dows water/ and gold and ghost objects and i also wrote my book the miracle of dowsing which is in the internet. how i dowsed the location of saddam the 666 in 6 minutes the ace of spades in the deck of playing cards. thank you for placing me in the dowsing claims. but if you could place me into the history section that would help. I have been in about 20 films and the los angles film industry beleives in me. for i'm being typed cast in films like. Heros', blades of glory, jericho, finding amada, numbers, csi, raines, rush hour 3 and justice just to mention a few. some information for you. I couldnt find any other way to send you this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.233.77 (talk • contribs)

Ah, there you are. What do you mean by "Saddam the 666"? If this is referring to Houssein, why 666? Also, how much money did the US Government give you for your successfully locating Saddam Houssein? Did you dowse him to a point on a map, or where you actually in Tkrit alongside military personnel? --Otheus 21:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

from robert a. swanson/direct..saddam is a killer/murdered people you must be playing with me. the us government wanted him and i was in the philippines in the mountains at the time locating the yamashita treasure digging holes in the ground 50 feet in hard rock. In old japanese headquarters which was a place that was a slave camp for philippino's and american's. I followed the war in iraq and heard about the deck of cards we needed more money to dig into the ground to recover the gold treasure i got board and learned how to people dows and it worked so i decided to dows saddam. Seeing photos and the war i gave it a try following one report mosul or tikrit 300 kilometers away i dowsed his location by though on to a map and iraq came up not mosul. my book tells the story. the next day i sent e-mail to the state department under powell as a embassy warden based in roxas city, philippines. next day ambassador came to roxas city by chance. meet the gov and mayor that i helped get into office. write place at the write time. then in dec the 4th inf closed off tikrit and then you see the story. I would like to be placed into the history section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 17boat (talk • contribs) 03:35, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Selection bias

The article has this quote in it "in particular tasks, showed an extraordinarily high rate of success, which can scarcely if at all be explained as due to chance ... a real core of dowser-phenomena can be regarded as empirically proven ... "

that is still a classic selection bias, most commonly described in the stock market. If you take 500 stock pickers, chances are, one or two of them will be able to beat the market. It doesn't mean that those two are smart, it is just luck that their specific choices beat the market. Similarly, among these 500 "dowsers" the fact that some tiny number of them were accurate lends no credence to the claim that dowsing works.

68.106.249.80 15:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

THE PROBLEM with your statement is that NO T EST has EVER proven beyond a doubt that dowsing does not work. Smith Jones 02:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
And of course you will list here details of all of the independant tests that HAVE proven that dowsing works. ):- . Moriori 02:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

PerfectBlue97's changes

PerfectBlue97, I have reverted recent changes. Most of these changes are removing sourced material and adding scare tags (like "who" and "fact") to sections which are already plainly cited. Also, renaming the "Evidence" section to "Research" isn't a bad idea, but the section was linked to within the article (which I should have noted in wikicomments). Finally, removing the "neutral" tag isn't undesirable, but I haven't seen discussion about that here. It's there for a good reason: it's a controversial subject and as soon as you remove it, the article will become cluttered with bias. --Otheus 09:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Scientific (?) Studies

I note the section on research says:

Dowsing for water has been scientifically investigated in two studies, the Munich study in the late 1980s and the Kassel study in 2004.

The Munich study was a scientific test conducted by scientists on behalf of the German government, while the Kassell study was a German version of Randi's million dollar challenge - i.e. contracts with "claimants", published in skeptical magazines/websites rather than subjected to peer review etc., and all the other tell-tale signs of pseudoscience. It is not really appropriate to describe these in the same way. Davkal 10:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Davkal, I endorse your changes, but not the reasons behind it. :) --Otheus 11:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The citations for these studies are incorrect. The information must be cited from its source, even if it comes from a skeptical publication. I find it the current article amusing since it has English quotes from a German text. Absentis 14:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I had inserted a section where I had come across a demonstration of dowsing on a television show, and it was promptly deleted as 'trivia'. I beg to differ--with a subject as arcane and foreign to some readers (many of whom might be unfamiliar with the process), citing a demonstration on a commercially available television program where one could see exactly how it's done is helpful, I believe.

Frankly, I feel this article is too heavy on the debate over the subject versus the subject itself; I think the article would be better served by explaining the process in the main article and creating a subarticle on the pro and con arguments. Leo 209.244.188.135 02:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree with you. I consider a fictional depiction of dowsing on a single episode of a television show to be too trivial for inclusion. There are plenty of commercially available videos of actual dowsing.Plazak 03:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the reference as 'trivia' on the basis that it opens the article up for every 'popular' reference to dowsing to be included - and then for what end? Just because a TV show demonstrates dowsing makes no addition to our knowledge of dowsing. We would also get into endless debates about what should or should not be included in the section. General notability guidelines should always be followed. What makes the 'popular tv show' actually notable and worth including? Gillyweed 03:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
There have been other fictional instances of dowsing, so instance, the use of the Orb of Aldur to follow Garion's kidnapped son, and Inigo Montoya's use of his sword to locate the Pit of Despair in The Princess Bride. TigressofIndia (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
What makes these notable enough to include in the article? There are probably hundreds of fictional accounts of dowsing and divining, but what do they contribute to the reader's knowledge of the subject? If we let this open up, this section could dwarf the rest of the article, with long lists of trival media references such as "In the 'Wally tries pot' episode of Leave It to Beaver, one of the characters has a cousin whio is a dowser." For a particularly bad example of this tendency, see the wiki article on Confidence tricks. Plazak (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The new facts from metal rod

If to be limited only to water search, in this case the information in article full enough. There are no only quantitative estimations of sceptics which too should prove the statements the concrete facts. For full clearness it is necessary to define, how many people are engaged in reception of the information by means of a rod or a pendulum or to learn most, to receive the information in such a way. Such possibility to receive the information by means of a modern metal rod it was presented to me. As a result of such experiment the information on architecture (designs) of pyramids which managed to be constructed really, and also about functions and action of these pyramids has been received [7]. (Shatilov Konstantin 16:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

LMFAO — NRen2k5(TALK), 12:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A minor suggestion on phrasing

A very small suggestion. In the 2nd paragraph the text currently states

"Dowsing is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community while Practitioners say their powers are paranormal."

I have no special axe to grind on the subject of dowsing and I am merely an open-minded casual reader of the current article (and occasionally dowsing in general), however I have met several "dowsers" in the past, and not all of them claimed that dowsing was due to any form of "paranormal" power e.g. I recall being told by one such dowser "I don't know how it works exactly, it just does." while another told me words to the effect of "Anyone can do it, it's perfectly natural, but most people don't bother to try." etc. I've also read the odd article and similar in which dowsers have suggested that (for example) the "twitching" they feel when dowsing may be the result of some kind of non-consciously directed response to some form of unidentified stimulus that has been recognised by them at a purely un- or sub-conscious level (which may well be pseudoscientific but hardly seems to be overtly suggesting a paranormal power).

I would not expect my recollections to be suitable for citation in an article (!) but they do make me feel that the above text may be more accurate if the wording was changed to something like

"some practitioners say their powers are paranormal" or even "many practitioners..." as I feel the current wording may be misleading as it seems to suggest a universal consensus among dowsers that probably does not in fact exist.

All the best

172.216.10.186 00:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It seemed to me that the introductory paragraph was not entirely neutral, so I've made an attempt to reword it with less emphasis on the pseudoscience while still retaining the original meaning. --Skeptic za (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Scepticism

The main problem with the history of this article is that there seems to be some bias from the dowsing community against "skeptics" which many times are simply asking for reasonable evidence. The main misunderstanding then is until such times as the dowsing community can provide any decent evidence the "skeptics" have the right if not the imperative to question the validity of the dowsing community. Oddly, the inability of the dowsing community to provide decent evidence is overlooked by the community itself which then seems to think "skeptics" are simply out to make the community as a whole look bad in some personal vendetta or the like.

Under these conditions, it is obvious to me that calling Jim T. Enright a "skeptic" is meant as a term of derision and a distraction from the honest scientific evaluation he has made of the Munich results. In his argument and numerous rebuttals, there is no evidence that he used anything personal or ill-measured to rebut the "findings" of the original team. There is therefore no reason to call Jim T. Enright a skeptic directly in the article as his evaluation was no more skeptical than as commensurate to any fit scientist. Grammatically, there is no need to call him a scientist and a skeptic, as the first requires the second, but more importantly: "politically" or "colloquially" the addition of the term skeptic erodes the natural supposition of non-bias assigned to a good and proper scientist.

The addition of the term skeptic then seems only to serve the argument to erode his good measure. Such that the dowsing community has a ready made excuse to stand against Jim T. Enright - that is, when his findings are questioned they can simply say - well he is a skeptic, as if to override or dismiss his scientific evaluation. For clarity then and to remove such a bias, it seems the term skeptic should be kept from the description of Jim T. Enright and his findings. Riluve (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You dont no what the "skeptic" means. It basicalyl means someone who doubts something. thats it. there is no bias against using athte worse. Mr. Enright has spent his career doubting and attacking dowsers and the dowsing scientific field, making him a skeptic. there is no reason why his behiavors should be treated as anything other than what it is, and while i understand what you made when you said taht you must understand that while his skepticism does not invalidate Enwright's scientific findings it does not prove them either. It just points out quite reasonable that his bias must exist and acknowledges that it impacts the way he conducts science against the dowsing research and design.
Could you translate the above paragraph into something that makes sense?--74.235.10.224 (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Under "evidence" sources are cited that were published in JSE and JPR. These journals are of dubious reputation and things reported in them should not be explicated here as "evidence". ScienceApologist (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Alleged Magnetic Attraction of Brass

"According to some dowsers who use divining rods, brass allows the rod to attune to magnetic fields emanated by the target without the earth's EM field interfering, as would be the case with a metal such as steel."

Overlooking the fact that this is a statement that is not cited, I would like to suggest that this is a sentence that can be misleading to the reader. If it is not illogical, then it is at least an unclear one. Pure brass will not react in any way when introduced to a normal magnetic field. Perhaps the author of the statement was referring to a rod with iron that was plated with brass, which would reduce an iron rod's reaction to a magnetic field (in this case, earth's). However, if earth's magnetic field was the stronger of the two, and the objective was to inhibit earth's field from interfering, logically this would also completely inhibit any effect the weaker field would have on the rod. If the converse was the case, then there is no need for plating, because the stronger force would outweigh any effect the earth’s weaker field would have on the rod. Only if the rod spun like a helicopter blade, and you don't desire this particular effect because of bodily harm, would I suggest plating. Either way, plating is pointless. In summary, if brass is not attracted to a magnetic field, and brass plating is not related to the dynamics between weaker and stronger magnetic fields other than an inductive property, then brass must be related to divining other than through magnetic fields, if it is at all. It is not my objective to alter this statement or to add to it, but to simply point out it's fallacies to any person who cares to read this unnecessary dissertation. If I were to do anything with this statement though, I would delete it, as it is not cited and does not have any veritable informative qualities. Also, if this is from a reliable source, including it would only discredit the diving article. I am interested in why brass is used in divining, but I believe this statement does not satisfy my intellectual thirst. 207.255.196.52 (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The intro is blatant POV

It states categorically that dowsing works! Here it is (edited) -- "Dowsing....refers to the practice of detecting.... (xxxxxx)...without the use of scientific apparatus." Crystal clear - a practice that achieves something. It would be NPOV and accurate to have the intro say "Dowsing, sometimes called divining or water witching, is the practice which dowsers say permits them to detect hidden or buried water, metals, gemstones, or other such objects without the use of scientific apparatus." Comments? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Scientific evidence of efficacy

I changed "despite scientific evidence disproving its efficacy" to "the scientific evidence for its efficacy is inconclusive". This is because the major scientific investigation of dowsing conducted by German scientists concluded that "a real core of dowser-phenomena can be regarded as empirically proven". This is how that study is reported in the article. Enright, in his analysis of that study, concluded that the results were no better than chance. That also is reported in the article. Thus, the scientific evidence for dowsing is disputed and it cannot be considered to have been either demonstrated nor refuted. This article says this and the introduction should match that. 67.207.136.16 (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Come on people, really? The article leaves the impression that dowsing is an open scientific question. You cannot, with any sort of intellectual dishonesty, claim that there is a controversy because the authors of a terribly poor paper (namely the one Enright criticizes) come to conclusions not warranted by their own data. This is the same as claiming there is strong evidence for homeopathy while ignoring the fact that the majority of positive evidence comes from the lab of a fraud and quack. It's a shame that people who demonstrate a complete lack of scientific understanding are crafting this article. 76.254.3.229 (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I clarified the introduction to note that there is a dispute about the evidence. I also removed the point about Enright writing in SI since he also published in Naturwissenschaften. I don't think there is any need to include Ertel's rejection of Enright (also in N'schaften [8]) in the introduction although it should probably be in the article somewhere. 67.207.136.16 (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


The second paragraph of the introduction simply is not well written. Two conflicting statements are made with no attempt to reconcile them into a proper introductory thesis that leads the reader sensibly into the rest of the article. Somehow a distanced NPOV writer needs to rewrite the entire paragraph. As of right now, it clearly appears to be nothing more than two conflicting subjective opinions (one a believer, one a skeptic) jammed together with no real effort to effectively and neutrally introduce the information in the article.
I do not believe that the contributer who rewrites the introduction need be well-versed on the matter beyond having read all of the information in the article, the references used in the article, and all of the information on the talk page. The writer only needs to be a reasonable, neutral writer who can write a straightforward, unbiased introduction deftly and concisely.
Any volunteers?--74.235.10.224 (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The german study you are referencing has been widely discredited as the results appeared not to be repeatable. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why the 2009 Wikipedia article on dowsing should be expected to list random studies from the 1970s or 1980s. --dab (𒁳) 14:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You also have Leif Engh, "Detektering av underjordiska vattendrag - test av tregeofysiska metoder (slingram, VLF, georadar) samt biofysisk metod(slagruta)", Lunds universitets naturgeografiska institution, rapport nr 55,1983. // Liftarn (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A reasonable, neutral writer who can write a straightforward, unbiased introduction deftly and concisely needs to do just that

Please read the discussion in the section immediately above this one.--74.235.10.224 (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please go ahead and do it yourself. Gillyweed (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Important source for this article

Note that the second edition of "Water Witching U.S.A." is previewable online through Google Books. It contains many arguments both for and against the reality of dowsing, and would seem to be a key source for this article. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There was also book I read which had a chapter on the authors own studies of dowsing (he does not claim to be a dowser himself but does claim to be a scientist) and also put forward a scientific theory for the mechanism behind it. The book was "The Religion of the Modern Scientist" by S.W Tromp. According to amazon further details include: Paperback: 480 pages Publisher: A.W. Sijthoff (1947) Language English ASIN: B0007IWXY6

I happen to have a copy of this at home so if people here can't find it I may be able to scan/transcribe the relevant sections (assuming it is in the public domain). Let me know if this is required. The details above are not the same as my copy, I believe mine was published a year or two earlier and is a hardback Drunkenduncan (talk) 05:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"ancient history"

So we have a website which claims that "evidence for dowsing" is found on a "4500-5000 year old grave inscription in Brittany". I am sorry, has anyone here ever heard of WP:RS, or WP:REDFLAG? Where is this grave? What is the content of the "inscription"? Do we mean an actual inscription (which astoundingly would be something like 2000 years older than any other inscription on the continent), or do we mean some petroglyph of inscrutable age that somewhat begins to look like a dowser if you squint at it long enough? Please don't bother citing random websites as sources. --dab (𒁳) 14:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge from divining rod

Hello. Seems the divining rod article has tried to focus on the equipment itself, but that invariably leads into discussion about the practice. It seems the dowsing article here deals with all of the information better. I propose merging the information from divining rod into this article. ~PescoSo say•we all 22:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Since we all seem to be in agreement, I've done this 86.138.104.18 (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Text removed from intro

So-called expert dowsers[who?] claim to be able to determine through dowsing exact depth measurements of water veins, electromagnetism, currents and telluric phenomena. However, dowsing has never been proven as a means of finding anything. Supporters of dowsing cite the accuracy of so-called expert dowsers.[2] Allegedly, the dowsing abilities of these experts{Who|date=November 2009}} are not limited by location or other conditions.[citation needed] However, those who negate dowsing point out that the phenomenon has been repeatedly shown to be inaccurate in tests[3] and that there has never been an experiment that conclusively proves dowsing effectiveness or demonstrates how dowsing works.[4] Furthermore, opponents of dowsing say that, without evidence, it's clear that dowsers who accurately determine quantifiable information are using other means such as good instincts or trained knowledge regarding nature, water or mineral sources, etc.[5] On the other side of the debate, dowsing supporters claim that dowsers who are unable to accurately perform in tests aren't "expert" enough or haven't refined their abilities.

Supposed expert dowsers also claim to be capable of measuring blood toxicity, white cells, and sugar levels, and detecting human illness and health.[citation needed] However, medical professionals have warned that relying on dowsing and other homeopathic remedies and procedures for biofeedback or diagnostic information (as opposed to proven treatments and medical testing) may be dangerous.[6] When looking for critical biofeedback information, one may get inaccurate data that may put a patient's life or health at risk.

Also, it may be dangerous to attempt to locate dangerous objects through dowsing or any other means. Some dowsers claim to be able to use the technique to find explosive land-mines and other hazardous materials.[7]

Guyonthesubway (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Dowsing

Definition Dowsing occurs when the Brain-Mind 'team' of a person manipulates their nervous-muscular system to give a signal, usually in response to a question that is asked. The Brain-Mind 'team' is very responsive to energies that are important to the body, such as water and electricity. The signals are manifested in a body part, such as the body leaning forward for YES or backward for NO. Many parts of the body can be chosen to be used, and the meaning of signals can be defined by the person. Signals (such as given to the hands) can be amplified by the use if a tool (Pendulum, 'L'rod, etc.) and can then be used for greater precision, such as pointing in a direction or indicating a value. When the person's Heart is in charge of the now 'Heart-Mind-Brain team' access to one's Intuition is improved, and the types of questions asked can be expanded.

John Living, Retired, previously a Royal, Chartered, and Professional Engineer Executive Secretary, The Holistic Intuition Society, http://www.in2it.ca John@dowsers.ca 66.183.179.24 (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Dowsing articles are a mess

I notice that a lot of the articles related to dowsing are a mess. I'm well aware that science does not accept the claims of dowsing - but there is more to this subject than whether or not it is a scientific fact, and it is of interest to me to read "interior views", i.e. notions and ideas from people who are inside the dowsing community.

The geopathic stress article, for example, redirects to telluric current. The earth radiation page seems to be little more than a long winded couple of paragraphs saying "this is rubbish", without explaining the subject in greater detail.

As for black streams, there is no proper article on the subject.

The dowsing article itself is the same. Despite the fact that dowsing has been practised for millennia in numerous parts of the world, features in art, literature and folklore, and has been punished severely as a form of witchcraft, most of the article is slanted towards test data. (There is some cultural/historical material at the beginning, but not enough frankly.) I don't know if I've expressed this very well. I'm all for sceptics offering refutations or alternative views on the subject - however that is only part of the issue. I don't believe in unicorns, but I don't just want to read an article saying that they don't exist (I know that already). Unicorns have a much wider cultural function than as a supposed biological entity. It's also interesting to read explanations of how the idea could have originated.-MacRùsgail (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that, without the test-data material, people try to use the article to say categorically "dowsing works" - which we shouldn't be saying in Wikipedia. If you want to expand on the cultural significance of Dowsing go ahead. But understand that the article is as it stands with a reason. Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you've missed the point. I don't give a monkey's cuss about test data, I'm well aware it isn't scientifically accepted. I'm interested in other aspects of this subject just now. I'm not just here to read a debunking. I was actually looking to find a discussion of concepts, a glossary, and something about the evolution/development of the thing.-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that dowsing concepts and history could be covered much better in Wikipedia, regardless of whether dowsing is accurate or valid. If you are up to taking on the task yourself, so much the better. You should to take care, however, when copying claims that dowsing goes back millennia. On close examination, claims that dowsing goes back farther than 15th-century Central Europe are often speculative at best, or based on the logical fallacy of equivocation (for example: falsely assuming that divination = dowsing, or rhabdomancy = dowsing, or virgula divina of ancient Rome = virgula divina of Renaissance Europe). Regards. Plazak (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not up to the task. I have some knowledge of dowsing, but not much at all about the history of it. However, most dowsing seems to be rhabdomancy, and it is a subset of both rhabdomancy and divination. (Template:Divination doesn't include dowsing on it by the way.) On the other hand, the popular notion that dowsing is merely looking for water, is an oversimplification and ignores the fact that dowsers regularly search for numerous other things from minerals to ley lines to ghosts.
Two quite divergent forms of dowsing are listed under "rods" - a Y branch is used slightly differently to unconnected rods, and is supposed to employ a different form of movement. (The Y branch tends to move vertically, the rods horizontally.) A third, listed separately, the pendulum, much more clearly blends into more general forms of divination, and has the added factor that its movement is more likely to be affected by air currents etc.
I dispute the Eurocentric view as well. There is a massive overlap between dowsing and certain non-European forms of geomancy, including Feng Shui. As I have said, the historical material could be beefed up considerably. The scientific data should remain, but it's not the only point of interest here.-MacRùsgail (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c See references to Enright, J.T., and "DowsingWorks" among the external links.
  2. ^ About.com: Paranormal Phenomenon -- [What You Need to Know About... Dowsing http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa072902a.htm]"
  3. ^ Depleted Cranium: "[Dangerous Dowsing: Divining for Landmines http://depletedcranium.com/dangerous-dowsing/]"
  4. ^ About.com: Paranormal Phenomenon -- [What You Need to Know About... Dowsing http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa072902a.htm]"
  5. ^ About.com: Paranormal Phenomenon -- [What You Need to Know About... Dowsing http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa072902a.htm]"
  6. ^ The Daily Telegraph: "[Homeopathic remedies 'put lives at risk' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571800/Homeopathic-remedies-put-lives-at-risk.html]"
  7. ^ Depleted Cranium: "[Dangerous Dowsing: Divining for Landmines http://depletedcranium.com/dangerous-dowsing/]"
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dowsing/Archive_1&oldid=1136677261"