jeffma (03/11/83)
I sent this article out about a week ago; based on responses to my
inquiries, it appears that some mysterious force out in the net has
apparently stunted its propogation past decvax (it seems that decvax bit
the dust at some point, so that might explain it..). At any rate,
enough people have indicated that a) they haven't seen it, and b) they
want to see it, that I decided to fling it out again. So please be
patient if you've already been subjected to my tirade. Many thanks to
those who responded to my effort to determine its whereabouts. I
encourage any intrepid dowsers (and others) to send me their reactions
to the results cited. Assuming it gets through this time...
***********************
(March 3)
Several intelligent people out there have asked about tests of dowsers'
abilities. Well, I've got some for you. But first, with regard to some
of the comments of "believers": I never cease to be amazed at how just
mentioning the word "dowsing" can get all sorts of people to dust off
old stories and submit them as "proof". Dowsing is a classic case of
what poorly controlled parameters, folklore, and unbridled speculation
can lead to. ANECDOTES ARE BAD EVIDENCE. To say that the paranormal
claims of dowsers are unwarranted is not the same as calling you a liar
if you dug up a pipe one time after walking around with a coat-hanger.
Such experiences under uncontrolled conditions do not represent sound
evidence, pro or con--the problem is getting the dowser to appreciate
the difference. The history of divination is quite long and pervasive,
and often an individual's beliefs are based on the opinions and actions
of trusted friends or relatives. Thus the defense of dowsing is fre-
quently an emotional issue; skeptics are perceived as calling into ques-
tion the integrity of both the believer and those who endorsed the
belief (I'm speaking from experience here). Unfortunately this often
reduces the motivation in the believer to objectively examine evidence
produced in a controlled, scientific manner. So I don't expect this
article to generate a lot of converts (I'm also speaking from experience
here).
When you delve into the question of "evidence", you have to distinguish
between different classes: case histories (eyewitness accounts, tes-
timonials, records kept by government agencies, etc.), field tests (no
controls or base lines), field experiments (controls or base lines), and
lab experiments (well controlled). In this article I'm going to res-
trict my attention to controlled experiments in the lab and field. If
anybody wants to hear about other types later, I'll be happy to accommo-
date them. But controlled tests are the most powerful ones, and it
would take another article as long as this one to fully do justice to an
explanation of the shortcomings of anecdotal evidence.
Another thing you have to consider is what dowsing claim you want to
address. What exactly do dowsers think they can do? Obviously these
considerations have to be part of the process of designing the experi-
mental conditions. The evidence submitted here is counter to any "unk-
nown external force" claim (i.e. that the dowsing rod is independently
influenced by an invisible and external force) as well as any "psychic"
claims (i.e. that the dowser has access to additional non-sensory infor-
mation which leads him/her to the target substance). It certainly does
not address the possibility that dowsers are somehow capable of reading
environmental minutia in a skillful way (i.e. ground signs, etc.),
because in these controlled tests an attempt is made to remove these
cues. In short, these experiments are an examination of common paranor-
mal claims for dowsing.
A while back I recommended the book "Water-Witching U.S.A." by Ray Hyman
and Evon Z. Vogt. The following two field experiments are mentioned in
chapter 4: "Does It Work? Controlled Experiments".
1. In 1951 the American Society for Psychical Research reported on
a test they performed on 27 dowsers. The test occurred in Maine,
1949. An area was carefully chosen to minimize extraneous cues
such as surface water, wells, trenches, vegetation distributions,
etc.. The investigators provided themselves with two base lines for
comparison against dowser performance: a chance selection of water
sites, and the "informed guesses" of two ground-water experts (a
geologist and a water engineer). Test wells were sunk for each
site selected by dowsers and water experts.
The experts did well at estimating over-all depth of water as well
as the water level at specific locations. Neither expert did well,
however, when it came to estimating the amount of water at specific
points: the water engineer did make some good estimates of flow
rate, however.
The dowsers were a complete failure, both in estimating depth and
quantity of water. There was no correspondence, either at an indi-
vidual or group level, between their estimates and the geologic
facts. Stated the testers: "Not one of our diviners could for a
moment be mistaken for an 'expert'... We saw nothing to challenge
the prevailing view that we are dealing with unconscious muscular
activity..." Hyman and Vogt add: "This experiment is the only one
that we know about where an adequate number of test wells were sunk
so that a legitimate statistical evaluation could be made." See
Dale, et. al., 1951, "Dowsing: A Field Experiment in Water Divin-
ing", Journal of American Society for Psychical Research, 45, 3-16.
2. In 1948 a guy named Ongley tested 75 diviners, each in their
specific area of "expertise" (some claimed the ability to locate
minerals, others found only flowing water, etc.). Each test was
arranged so as to allow a comparison with a chance base line. 58
claimed water-finding ability. Their test consisted of the follow-
ing:
a. Having the dowser locate an underground stream and then come
back to it with his/her eyes closed.
b. Having the dowser locate an underground stream and then later
distinguish between pegs on the stream and pegs off--the experi-
menter having placed half of the set of pegs on, the other half off
the formerly "dowsed" stream.
c. Getting two or more dowsers to check one another on underground
stream locations.
d. Having the dowser determine whether a hidden bottle was full of
water or empty.
e. Asking two or more dowsers to determine the depth of the water
below the ground.
Guess what? Not a single dowser performed significantly better
than chance on any test. The remaining diviners were tested on
their respective abilities; none did better than would be expected
from chance. One blindfolded "health diviner" diagnosed a man's
wooden leg has having varicose veins. Says Ongley: "It seems
divining reactions are due not to any earthly radiations but to
suggestion". See P.A. Ongley, 1948, "New Zealand Diviners", New
Zealand Journal of Science and Technology, 30, 38-54.
If you are lucky enough to have access to back issues of the "Skeptical
Inquirer" you can find some dowsing tests in two articles:
1. Fall, 1979: "A Controlled Test of Dowsing Abilities" by James
Randi. A test plot was set up with buried pipes, through which
water was dutifully pumped. The dowsers who took the test were
asked to put down between 10 and 100 pegs; each peg was supposed to
be placed within a 20 cm wide area, centered over the pipe. A suc-
cessful "dowse" would consist of a total hit rate of 66% total pegs
in the "hit-zone" in two out of three trials (i.e. three trials for
each dowser). Each subject agreed in writing that the experiment
was fair, and that they felt capable of performing at that time (no
bad vibes). All three dowsers failed quite miserably (the actual
paths predicted by each dowser, along with the true pipe layout,
are illustrated in the article). A typical spectacular score was 2
pegs correct out of 32 placed (and often the "correct" pegs were
merely the place where a perpendicular predicted path intersected
the path of the true pipe).
2. Summer, 1982: "Two Tests of Divining in Australia:" by Dick
Smith. This report was in two parts, the first of which actually
represents a "test" more than an experiment, since the controls are
minimal.
a. Vic Vaisey, Australian dowser extraordinaire, charged Malcolm
McDowell $100 to predict the water depth on his property; his pred-
iction, based on dowsing, was 35 - 40 feet. Prior to this (and
unknown to Vaisey) the South Wales Water Resource Commission had
advised McDowell that he would find water between 50 and 330 feet.
This advice was free. Water was eventually struck at 210 feet,
after passing through a layer of dry shale at 80 feet. Vaisey did
not return the $100, but did note that it was his "first" failure.
Again, this is not a truly controlled test, but is included here
because you'll find it in the article cited.
b. 25 of Western Australia's best diviners tried to find a metal
object in one of several cardboard boxes, before TV cameras and a
live audience. Before the test they all stated that they could
easily perform under the conditions of the test. After failing
miserably they dredged up excuses ranging from a huge aluminum
deposit under the building to interference from audience jewelry.
The "best" performer of the failures was Cecil Holmes, who was
later subjected to another test. Cecil was asked to find a gold
ingot place in one of ten boxes. Although he gleefully demon-
strated the effect the fully visible ingot had on his rod, the test
with the concealed ingot yielded one hit in eleven tries. Amazing.
Apparently Cecil didn't know when to quit, because he then pro-
ceeded to demonstrate his ability to "divine" a two-dollar bill.
If he walked over a two-dollar bill while holding another in his
hands the dowsing rod would dip, but not if he switched to a one-
dollar bill. Even more amazing was the fact that the mysterious
force failed to operate properly when he couldn't see the bill.
There seems to be a pattern developing here with respect to
controls...can you find it?
One point I'd like to make clear about the actual test candidates is
that, almost always (and certainly in the cases cited above), the
dowsers were either selected because of their superlative reputation or
were allowed to volunteer. The experimenters didn't look for "bad"
dowsers; quite the contrary.
When believers (i.e. subscribers to the paranormal view of dowsing) are
asked to contend with the less-than spectacular performance of dowsers
under controlled conditions, they usually respond in one of the follow-
ing ways (these are shamelessly paraphrased from Vogt and Hyman):
1. The "one good case" argument. It is true that one instance in
which dowsers were able to perform consistently and significantly
better than alternative methods under controlled conditions would
argue in favor of dowsing. The problem is, no such case is known
to exist (anybody out there know of one?).
2. The "test of time" argument. Basically, this argument is that
"any practice that has come down through at least 3200 years must
have much more basis than 'muscle-twitching'". I'm not even going
to bother with this one: its just hogwash, and, if accepted as an
argument, would allow astrology, witch-craft, and a veritable
garbage-heap of other quaint practices to slip through the hands of
reason.
3. The "quantity of evidence" argument. People who use this argu-
ment believe that quantity can overcome quality when it come to
evidence. Said Confucius: "If a thousand people say a foolish
thing, it is still a foolish thing". Amen.
4. The "testimonial" argument. Someone might say "if Nobel Prize
winner Charles Richet endorses water-witching, there must be some-
thing to it". Do you buy a particular brand of motor oil because
Arnold Palmer endorses it? If you did, would you admit it? Give
me a break.
5. The "it would be a good thing for mankind" argument. It sure
would. But believing in water-witching irregardless of the evi-
dence doesn't make it automatically true. More nonsense.
6. The "good versus bad diviners" argument. A common response is:
"Yeah, well, those failures were because the tested dowsers were no
good" (see my comment above on candidate selection). This is a
hindsight argument: before the tests, the soon-to-be failures are
just as good as anybody else.
7. The "unfairness of laboratory conditions" argument. Like the
prior response, this is a hindsight argument. Before the test the
dowser is fully amenable to the setup. Would you willingly be
tested under conditions which you perceive to be unfair? The
Catch-22 principle is very popular in paranormal circles. Varia-
tions on this argument are the "bad vibes" strategy and the "psi-
missing" ploy.
8. The "accept us on our own terms" argument. Dowsers often
recognize their inability to produce under controlled conditions,
so they ask people to waive that requirement. Back to the dark
ages.
Those who theorize about the nature of the forces which "dip the rod"
(and there have been quite a few on the net) should first make clear
what they're trying to explain. I've heard lots of imaginative sugges-
tions about static charges and magnetic fields, but I would suggest that
the following points be considered:
a. The dowser's ability to locate water through "external" forces
influencing his/her rod has simply not been demonstrated reliably;
no sound evidence exists (although there are enough anecdotes
around to choke a dry well). Since physical forces with fairly
significant magnitudes are being theorized by some people, the
phenomenon is presumably being assumed to fall within the realm of
science. Providing "quasi-scientific" theories about a phenomenon
which has not been demonstrated scientifically is like a surgeon
cutting open a patient before a medical diagnosis. It's premature
and stupid.
b. Many well-known dowsers who claim to be able to find water "in
the field" are also perfectly happy to locate the "right spot" on a
map, in the comfort of your living room. I'm sure you'll agree
that this process isn't easily accessible by conventional physical
force theories. The point here is that a lot of dowsers don't dis-
tinguish between the two methods in terms of how the rod "feels".
If you think this is a rare practice, you're wrong--in fact, the
whole field of "psychic archaeology" is squarely based on this type
of divining (which I'll be happy to discuss and debunk for anyone
interested).
c. Dowsers (and generally diviners) often claim to be able to
detect specific substances. One such dowser (see Hyman and Vogt),
Clarence V. Elliot, actually designed a multi-purpose dowsing rig
which consisted of a fairly conventional-looking forked rod with a
small capsule at the tip. To use this ingenious device, one has
merely to place a small sample of the substance one wishes to find
in the capsule (Elliot carried his sample collection around like a
bandolier of bullets around his waist). Again, the point is that
this type of ability is quite often mixed in with the ambitious
dowser's claims. I claim that the belief of dowsers like Elliot is
probably akin to ancient notions about homeopathic magic (i.e.
"like seeks like"--see Sir James George Frazer's "The Golden
Bough").
d. Dowsers use an incredible variety of "tools" to do their thing,
including wooden sticks and various forms of that funny pendulum I
talked about in an earlier article (how about a bunch of keys on a
chain, suspended from a bible? It's good to have the Lord on your
side...). As someone else has already pointed out, one might
expect physical composition to have something to do with the recep-
tivity of the implement to some external (e.g electro-magnetic or
other) force. It's worth noting, however, that one common factor
is apparent in the choice of implements: their peculiar affinity
for the "ideomotor action" response.
In summary: those controlled experiments which address the paranormal
claims of dowsers have, to my knowledge, never produced any result other
than complete failure. As far as the evidence is concerned, dowsing is
merely a manifestation of some internal suggestion, albeit perhaps the
result of subtle environmental cues picked up through conventional sen-
sory channels. The "ideomotor action" response I mentioned in an ear-
lier article has been well-demonstrated, and represents a sound mechan-
ism for transmitting these suggestions to the rod. That dowsers can find
water is not disputed here; only the assertion that dowsers have a
paranormal "edge" over conventional techniques. You can throw scraps of
anecdotal evidence at me all day, folks, but when the chips are down,
dowsers just can't cut it. Sorry.
Jeff Mayhew
Tektronix
P.S.: I've gotten a tremendous response to my offer of a skeptical
booklist. Thanks. It's on the way, but you'll have to be patient. I've
had my hands full just responding to the mail resulting from earlier
articles.turner (03/13/83)
#R:teklabs:-181200:ucbesvax:1100014:000:369
ucbesvax!turner Mar 12 21:11:00 1983
Will you stop? Please? No more infinite-length, justified-but-
uncentered articles on dowsing. CENTER the text, indent for paragraph
beginnings, and put in a table of contents and chapter titles. I'm
sure it will sell quite well in drugstores, if you would only send
it to the right publishers.
No, I Don't Have A Hangover,
Michael Turnerkarn (03/15/83)
I think we all owe Jeff Mayhew our thanks for entering such a complete and authoritative document on dowsing. I think the "proponents" are still reeling from its blow. Maybe now that this issue is settled once and for all, we can go onto more interesting topics? Thanks Jeff! Phil Karn