Sunday 28 March 2021

Rhabdomancy



                                            Essential Equipment for Dowsing

What are we to make of the phenomenon, that is dowsing? Is it to be tossed into the bin of 'irrational 'technologies', or does it warrant serious consideration as a legitimate natural phenomenon?

I'm sure my readership is familiar with the art of dowsing. Is it possible to frame a scientifically valid causal hypothesis concerning dowsing's mode of action? Classical dowsing is concerned with the detection of flowing underground water. Could water flow cause the formation of a detectable electromagnetic field? Tis at least worthy of scientific scrutiny. Thusly, flowing water interacting with a subterranean substrate, may induce a fluctuating electric field, that in principle, could be detected by a sensitive and simple, hand held device such as a 'dowsing wand'. Of course, adherents often claim much more, such as, the ability to detect oil reserves, gold deposits, and even buried ancient man made structures. Oil and mineral prospecting companies have been known to employ dowsers in an effort to detect untold wealth. The general public are apt to lend a positive ear and are surprisingly receptive to dowsing. Indeed, 40% of the US population are staunch believers. But then again, 40% of the US population also believe in creationism as opposed to evolution- tis enough to make a rational bonce revolve 180 degrees. Nuff said (arse). 

The dowsing device can vary from a simple forked branch, to metal rods allowed to independently rotate, to cunningly fashioned black boxes containing electronics and knobs. So, as said, there may be a perfectly plausible scientific reason explaining dowsing's effectiveness. This would constitute a valid hypothesis. A possible scientific explanation, before any scientific investigation is performed, is termed, 'the hypothesis'. Before a hypothesis can earn the exalted status of a theory, positive experimental evidence is required. And this is where our posited hypothesis flounders (wet fish). Simply stated: numerous researchers have failed to come up with any hard scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of dowsing as a real natural process for detecting underground water, or anything for that matter. When controlled experiments have been conducted, the detection of hidden objects, by dowsing devices, has been found to be no more than chance. Therefore, the hypothesis has been found wanting and consequently dowsing is not a viable technique for the detection, of anything. Hard nosed dowsers seem unconcerned that science has not been able to uncover a causal mechanism. For them the technique works. And it does appear that dowsers do experience involuntary muscular movements that cause dowsing rods to move. This in no way demonstrates that dowsing is effective, but is likely due to 'ideomotor movements'. This is fancy psychology jargon for 'it is all in the mind' and is under subconscious mind control. This is a similar effect observed when gullible folk play around with the Ouija board. 

I would like to introduce 'The James Randi Educational Foundation' and its 1 million dollar challenge. If someone can produce real evidence, under rigorous scientific conditions, that demonstrates paranormal abilities, then the foundation will award the individual with the princely sum of 1 million dollars. Since the challenge was put in place, hundreds of applications have been submitted to the foundation for testing. Interestingly, 80% of  the applications are about dowsing ability. And guess what? The reward awaits to be claimed.        

Dowsing is very popular amongst the 'New Age' crowd. They are also keen on other dubious pseudoscientific beliefs, such as crystals and alternative medicine- see earlier postings. Fringe groups are notoriously anti-science and take great delight in disregarding true scientific principles and replacing them with utter gobblygook and sundry bollocks.

To conclude: dowsing clearly comes under the umbrella of pseudoscience and should be treated in the same way we would treat astrology and a belief in ghosts. All that can be considered without evidence, can be dismissed, without evidence.   

“We must accept dowsing as fact.  It is useless to work experiments to prove its existence. It exists.  What is needed is its development.” 

The above was expressed by a prominent dowser, Charles Richet. This really sums up the anti-scientific stance typical of the 'pseudoscience brigade'.


11 comments:

  1. I have tried dowsing. I have no idea what caused the phenomenon but it certainly seemed to me that the end of the forked twig was twitching of its own volition, as if someone was tugging on a bit of string tied to it. There was some vague correlation with the known position of a buried water main.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All we seem to have is anecdotal evidence based on personal testament. I have no doubt that dowser folk are adamant that they are experiencing something real. Problem is anecdotal evidence is a highly flawed path to real knowledge. It is a similar problem with acupuncture. I remember having a lively debate with my Chinese GP about the usefulness of the technique. She had used it in clinical practice and believed its efficacy. Again, the evidence using double blind trials shows that the technique is worthless when it comes to clinical use. I suppose in this instance we shouldn't discount the placebo effect.

      Delete
  2. I don't believe in dowsing as the science and logic just aren't there to support it.
    Having said that, both my father and myself have used dowsing rods many times in the past. In my own case I used the rods to locate buried cables very successfully [and in a professional capacity]. So I don't believe it can possibly work, but it works - a sort of reverse faith.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I share your scepticism & the adult 'scientist' in me is inclined to regard dowsing as complete bolleaux. But . . .

    As a boy, the young me was obliged to (hand) pump water from a number of wells dug by my grandfather. He was a dowser & had proved the existence of underground springs on his small market garden. Digging to the same depth elsewhere on his plot (something else I had to do) didn't reveal water, so he must have been damned lucky if it was simply chance.

    But No. 2 . . .

    Years ago I remember reading in an IEE magazine (way before the internet - probably mid-late 1970s) of a member who had conducted some dowsing experiments, shielding various parts of the dowsers' bodies with grounded aluminium foil. All I can remember is wishing my grandad had still been alive so that I could have tried to replicate the informal study.

    As they say, "more research is needed". Grants are probably available if you can find a way of linking it to climate change or a similar fashionable racket. Dowsers with darker skin tones anybody?

    DevonshireDozer

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm going to give the technique a try on my property. I'll get someone to bury water containers and ensure they hide any evidence of soil disturbance. Should be interesting on a personal, but not on a scientific level. When I get around to this I'll post a follow up- just a bit of whimsy.

      Delete
    2. Brilliant. Whimsy is why I come here. That and edification.

      Make sure you use dowsing rods cut from a willow tree at full moon. There's another thing to check for - do they really work any better than a bent coat hanger?

      DevonshireDozer

      Delete
    3. I wonder if the branch of a gum tree works as well. As for the midnight thingy- it wouldn't work as I'm usually too drunk by then. hic.

      Delete
  4. If it worked it would be easy to prove conclusively in proper controlled experiments rather than having to rely on anecdotal tales. Come on dowsers, put up or shut up.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Absolutely, Mr Vatsmith. couldn't agree more. This is why we conduct double blind scientific trials. And this regard dowsing has been found wanting. The 'dowsing effect' is really a study for the psychologists.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I read about experiments (in the late 1970s) when the experimenter covered himself completely in aluminium foil and found his previous (alleged) ability to detect stuff was blocked. By removing the foil bit-by-bit, he found an area on the spine in the middle of his back was the sensitive spot. (This made a sort of sense, as it could perhaps directly influence the shoulder muscles, lifting the arms slightly which would be seen as the rods moving.)
    So I tried it and found I could repeatedly detect hidden objects, like keys under a carpet. Of course, as my partner had secretly hidden the objects, I could just have been reading her mind about their whereabouts...ha ha.
    It's very hard to accept there's an effect, even when seeing it happen! It's insufficiently reliable to claim the $1M, but worthy of research.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As said before, we are entering the world of 'anecdotal phenomenon'. Unfortunately, it is not worth the paper it's not written upon. Mayhap, you were reacting to subtle cues?

      Delete