Talk:Dowsing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dowsing article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Dowsing article.

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them == A Descriptive Header ==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.

Contents

[edit] 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 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

  • 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)

[edit] grammer...

 the grammer 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...

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Let's Get the Definition Right

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.134.225.224 (talk • contribs).


  • Dr. Wilhelm Gutberlet
  • Dr. Benedikt (name was linked but there is no article about this individual)
  • Dr. E. Clasen
  • Ernst Schradin
  • Dr. K.E. Weiss (ß) (Karl Erhard)
  • Rud. Vöckler
  • Friederike Hauffe
  • Heinrich Jürgens
  • Julie Kniese
  • Professor Karl Bähr
  • Friedrich Kallenberg 1911-1934
  • Professor DR. Leopold Oelenheinz
  • Sheree Rainbolt-Kren RMT, Energy Healer and Teacher. First to conduct experiments on crystals and their natural pendulum swing. [citation needed]
  • Alex Stiebel - Water Manager for South Bloomfield Highlands, MI, USA. Used dowsing rods to find buried water mains in residents' property. [citation needed]

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.134.225.224 (talk • contribs).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 -- 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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 being (wilfully) stupid. 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/o/w/Talk%7EDowsing_759b.html"