Jump to content

Talk:Dowsing

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JimBobUSA (talk | contribs) at 00:11, 10 February 2012 (→Medical merge). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

NPOV concerns

I have serious NPOV concerns with the article. I'm not going to tag the article until I have time to look through all the references. There are numerous mentions of NPOV here on this talk page, so I'll look into the article history during those disputes. If anyone wants to comment in the meantime, I'd be interested in hearing what others think. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's misleading to refer to the ADE 651 as anything to do with dowsing. It was clearly a dangerous scam and did not involve dowsers. The reference to it being any sort of dowsing device is clearly meant to discredit dowsing. 194.75.238.4 (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)lsur[reply]

It's a device which is claimed to find nearby substances but, in fact, can only succeed through chance and self-delusion: It is dowsing. bobrayner (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's clearly some self-delusion on the part of various government procurement departments which doesn't say much for the so-called scientists they employ. As usual, sceptics are wise after the event. Your circular definition of dowsing is as sad as it is unhelpful. Lsur (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Lsur[reply]

NPOV concerns

Otheus AKA Randi has monopolized and thereby ruined this Wikipedia entry with his obvious control issues and skeptism ... there are your NPOV concerns. Those that know and could contribute diligently, are suppressed. Suppressed Truth and History are their ploy for control.

Just look at the Einstein Letters above . Randi oh excuse me "Otheus" , just wont admit the truth when its staring him in the face....

anything else you want to learn Otheus ?

_ >the unknown scientist - dowser —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.228.54.222 (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Randi's own test: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqoYrSd94kA#t=21m30s

Water dowsing trials: 50, probability of success: 0.1 (10%), successes: 11 (22%)

probability: 0.00613468 (0.6%!)

liar liar pants on fire. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After redefining "success", yes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Be my guest, redefine the lies all you want.
32min 55 sec : "The chances are one in ten, that is ten percent, ten percent was the chance per purely by mathematical chance, not with any ability being exhibited, just the fact it be done by throwing a coin, or throwing a dart into a board. Be one in ten - or ten percent." - Randi
Of all the things Randi could be accused of not being clear enough it was 10% isn't one of them.
I punch the numbers into the calculator *tap* *tap* *tap* *tap* *tap*
Probability of success: 0.1
Successes: 11
Trials: 50
http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc3/calc.aspx?id=69
Binomial probability P(x=11): 0.00613468
84.106.26.81 (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for not watching the video and checking the meaning of all this, but 1/0.00613468 = 1 success per 163 trials. Not exactly unbelievable. Gnathan87 (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to watch the video. They walked over 10 tubes, they did this 50 times, 11 out of the 50 times the dowser chose the right tube. If they would have chosen the pipes randomly they would have scored 5 our of 50 or very close to it. 11 is way to much.
Wikipedia:Synth says: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.
Normally I think the source should be removed if the conclusions don't fit their own number but I think Dowsing is special. While brief, original mathematical manipulations may be used to support or explain known results new results should not be derived.
But is it really a new result or is it stating the obvious?
84.106.26.81 (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You cherry picked your part of the video. The total statistics were 15 out of 111 which is 12%, i.e the chance result. As you have a larger sample size you expect the result to be closer to the chance result. i.e in a small size you can and will have statistical flukes. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To the OP, I came here from the maths reference desk. I take objection to your attempted outing of Otheus. Please do not do anything like this on Wikipedia. As to the chances the 15 out of 111 is the one to look at, choosing after the fact to look at a part of a test is simply wrong, it is like choosing the trial in which 9 out of ten cats preferred the cat food and then saying they really do prefer it. Also for future reference you need to consider all the possibilities of 11,12,13,14 etc not just 11 so the chance is about 1% if you had started out with the correct assumptions. Dmcq (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, there is almost 0.4% chance to score above 11. My mistake. One whole percent is close enough for what we need. Now for the question if this is obvious enough to mention in the article. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well if the test had just been for water dowsing and the rest hadn't been done there would be a case for doing more testing. However picking one test after the event out a combined result is cherry picking. I guess what would be best is to do another test for water dowsing on its own plus you'd really need something like 200 trials to get a result that was really significant if they are right in one in 5 cases instead of one in ten. Personally I'd have thought that some of them probably could smell or hear the water and I'm surprised they didn't do better, the test must have been set up fairly well. Dmcq (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biophysics

The only scientifically acceptable method to study dowsing is through biophysics. This assumes that some people can detect low levels of known types of radiation. The most widely cited investigators using this approach who have published in English include Maby and Franklin, Tromp, Rocard, Harvalik, and Chadwick and Jensen. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research Vol. 51, No. 792, October 1982, pp. 343-367.



  • Tromp, S. W., "First Report on Experiments Concerning the Influence of Variations in the Strength of the Magnetic Field on Muscular Contraction.", Dutch Journal of Parapsychology, January 1947.
  • Tromp, S. W., "Recent Experiments on physical aspects of the muscle-tonus-reflex (dowsing)", Proceedings of the first international conference of parapsychological studies, Utrecht, The Netherlands, G. Murphy (Ed), S. 24-26, July 30 - August 5, 1953
  • Tromp, S. W., "Recent experiments on physical aspects of the muscle-tonus-reflex (dowsing)", Proceedings of the First International Conference of Parapsychological Studies. New York: Parapsychology Foundation, 1955


  • Parsons, D. (1963). Review of Le Signal du Sourcier by Y. Rocard. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 42, 197-200.
  • Rocard, Y. (1964). Le Signal du Sourcier. Paris: fr:Dunod.
  • Thouless, R. H. (1964). Review of Le Signal du Sourcier bv Y. Rocard. The Journal of Parapsychology, 28, 142-143.
  • L’Huillier,J. R. (1968). Report on Professor Rocard’s studies on dowsing. In Cavanna and Ullman (Eds.), Psi and Altered States of Consciousness. (Proceedings of and International Conference Held at Le Piol, St. Paul De Vence, France, June 9-12, 1967). fr:Garrett Press.
  • Montgomery, D. J. (1964). Review of Le Signal du Sourcier by Y. Rocard. Physics Today, 17, No. 7, 54-57.
  • Harvalik, Z. V. (1973b). Where are the dowsing sensors?. The American Dowser, 13, 48-49.
  • Harvalik, Z. V. (1978). Anatomical localization of human detection of weak electromagnetic radiation: experiments with dowsers. Physiological Chemistry and Physics, 10, 525-534.
  • Harvalik, Z. V., and De Boer. W. (1976). Cobalt-60 dowsing experiments. The American Dowser, 16, 167-169.
  • Harvalik, Z. V. (1970). A biophysical magnetometer-gradiometer. The Virginia Journal of Science, 21, No. 2, 59-60.
  • Harvalik. Z. V. (1973a). Dowsing reaction to electromagnetic fields in the frequency ranges from 1 hertz to 1 mega hertz. The American Dowser, 13, 90-91.

Enjoy,

84.107.147.16 (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Err most of those journals and sources are not reliable (pretty much all). IRWolfie- (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The only scientifically acceptable method" Such demands have absolutely no weight here, and violate NPOV, FRINGE, and SCIRS. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no demand. I'm not demanding anything. If I had demands I would put them in the article.
About sources: Proponents of works may be covered if their work enjoyed sufficient media attention. Even the most magical claims may be covered if the claims themselves get enough coverage. We should only cite the secondary source on the topic but we may provide primary sources.
Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. I would most prefer to use primary sources only to validate secondary. Contradictions would lead to omission rather than choosing who is right.
What I'm doing here is collecting primary sources that are good enough to make it worth searching for secondary coverage.
So, relax, I know what I'm doing. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This publication was significant enough to be reviewed in Nature.

There might be something interesting there :)

84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you think something is interesting when nature has the statement in the lede "There seems to be no direct evidence for such waves, and the author's discussion of their polarization cannot be justified on our present physical knowledge". IRWolfie- (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The author of the review is entitled to his opinion. We only care if it is significant or not. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a secondary source which states the primary source is not worthy of consideration. I fail to see how that indicates significance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the review is entitled to his opinion. We only care if it is significant or not. I will ask some one for it. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contains a segment on Chadwicks work:

Chadwicks Television performance entirely convinces the viewer that 1) the phenomenon exists and that 2) there is nothing super natural going on.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So why is this here? Looks like a list of dead-end research, exactly as you'd expect when you study something that isn't. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So IP all you have still is youtube videos and a non-existant paper. The obriscascade.org link is just a catalog of publications, it doesn't contain a word of the publication. And youtube, aside from the problems intrinsic to youtube as a source, is not a direct source of the paper. Like I told you on IRC all you have are YT vids, a vague patent that doesn't work, and a scientific paper that you haven't even read yourself. That is the sum total of the evidence for dowsing.--Adam in MO Talk 10:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is an understandable misconception but there is no youtube in this. I provided the illegally archived copy anticipating "how can I validate this?" questions. Even while you don't even have any right to watch the material, specially not for free I do confess I did invite you to illegally download it. *shrug* Thinking you are watching youtube only shows what naive criminal you are. </sarcasm> 84.106.26.81 (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence, you have none. Couldn't you just wave some sticks around and find some. </sarcasm>--Adam in MO Talk 02:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medical merge

I'm proposing that medical dowsing be merged into this article (dowsing). There is nothing there which shouldn't be merged here.... 04:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. Sounds logical. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This would be a mixing of 'class' . Medical Dowsing is about diagnosis and this article is about locating. It is only the word 'Dowsing' that occurs in both. Its a bit like saying the laying on of hands and psychic surgery which are two completely different forms of mumbo jumbo are the same as they both involve the practitioner to use his hands. I'm sure Francis Bacon would not approve things being lump together simply on noun connections.--Aspro (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, without predudice to moving back to a separate article if somebody builds up more & better sourced content in future. I don't think we need to make such a strict distinction between diagnosis and location - sources frequently discuss medical dowsing with other forms of dowsing, and practitioners frequently do both. The "dowsers" who think they can identify illness with a pendulum over a medical textbook are hardly different to the ones who find hidden resources with a pendulum over a map. bobrayner (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Comment: The similarity of mechanization might make the unscientific mind draw a ethereal connection but as a (and hopefully enlightened) encyclopedia, why should we should follow them blindly into their concepts of similarities? To an uniformed reader (which is what WP is aimed at -is it not) it can start looking a little like the pot calling the kettle black. After all, aren’t all these beliefs, examples of rich and fascination facets of human culture. Should we not therefore, continue to keep subjects in the proper and separate classifications and expand them; instead of reducing ourselves down to their level?--Aspro (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dowsing&oldid=476038954"