Dowsing

[Ksihkehe]

I don't know any dowsers, unfortunately. Maybe the power of suggestion, or just knowing it's possible and following the PDF guide will make something click? I'll let you know! 

Since I haven't talked about dowsing much, having no real experience, I can't say that it will work quite the same as it does when discussing lucid dreams.

But... in the grand scheme of things it all works on the same mechanisms. Suggestion is way more powerful than people give it credit for. Placebo effect can occur in up to 50% of the people it's tested on. Placebo effect is just passive suggestion, which is the most gentle of gentle methods of persuasion. I say persuasion because in my opinion this is an invisible conversation that the world (universe, environment, culture) is having with the invisible aspects of consciousness (subconscious, morphic fields, pick your terms). If I sell you snake oil and it fixes your problem, is it still snake oil? They're not really selling medicine, they're selling belief.

I think a great deal of psi is not so much a matter of who can and can't, but who has and who hasn't. There's probably a bell curve on natural aptitude as well, like most things. The barriers to success are mostly self-imposed or the product of the cultural indoctrination that we've all been subject to.

I have no doubt that a dowser could do a sort of laying of hands and get somebody else to successfully dowse, but I don't think the person being assisted is merely acting as a conduit. I think the interaction between the dowser and the one they're helping is probably heavily leaning on placebo effect to bridge the gap that cultural indoctrination has created. Not that it doesn't also cause real changes, but I don't know that it's like the dowser is burning through the wall with directed energy.

These are just my opinions of course and deduced from broader study rather than through direct observation. Like everything it's also subject to the individual's perception. I think the technique of having a dowser that has demonstrated the ability to use it successfully assist is ingenious, even if they didn't know exactly what they were leveraging when they came up with it. Nobodyspecial obviously has quite an aptitude for engaging his psi effects, so that little push was all he needed. Somebody with less aptitude may need a few sessions to really cement it, but I think it would have success in a fair number of people.

Whatever the real nuts and bolts of how it works are there is nothing I'm aware of that measures it yet, as far as dowsing goes. I think finding that out would probably shed a great deal of light on a number of psi effects. I suspect an EEG would show a similar pattern to what I've seen reported in studies on other psi effects. I'd love to have a cheap and lightweight EEG to play with, but I don't know that it's anything that might ever be available or accessible to a pleb like me.

[FCD]

According to the old geezer survey crew chief I posted about above, he said anyone could do it.  There was no magic in the person, it was the copper rods which did the dowsing.  According to him, you just needed to hold the rods level and loosely enough to let them do their thing.

I tried it once with some brass brazing rods bent similarly.  It 'sort of' worked, but I had a pretty good idea where the water was so I would say I was biased.  There was no bias in the experience I described above.  There was no way to bias anything, and it was the first time any of us had been to that property.

I neglected to mention something in my previous experience.  When I said we tried all sorts of different techniques, I was being serious.  We had some other instruments, one of which was a laser which we could shine down the known pipe.  Once we acquired the laser at the far end we could measure the signal strength and deflection.  Another pipe in the line would affect the deflection, but this only really worked if there was a large volume of water moving through the pipe when we did this test (which there wasn't).  The other test we ran was effectively a sonic test.  It worked along similar lines, but used ultrasonic sound waves to measure intensity on the receive end.  Inside diameter and pipe length would let us compute expected values, and any values different from this would indicate an anomaly.  From there, we could zero in on where the anomaly was occurring.  Neither of these tests revealed anything conclusive.  This is what led to the dowsing attempt.

According to the old surveyor, dowsing needed water (or liquid) to work.  However, there wasn't much water (if any, in some locations) inside this pipe.  My conclusion from this was that volume of open space or different density had something to do with the phenomenon.  I know there are many, many, doubters, and I understand, but like I said...I've seen it work, in person.

[NobodySpecial268]

But... in the grand scheme of things it all works on the same mechanisms. Suggestion is way more powerful than people give it credit for. Placebo effect can occur in up to 50% of the people it's tested on. Placebo effect is just passive suggestion, which is the most gentle of gentle methods of persuasion. I say persuasion because in my opinion this is an invisible conversation that the world (universe, environment, culture) is having with the invisible aspects of consciousness (subconscious, morphic fields, pick your terms). If I sell you snake oil and it fixes your problem, is it still snake oil? They're not really selling medicine, they're selling belief.

I think a great deal of psi is not so much a matter of who can and can't, but who has and who hasn't. There's probably a bell curve on natural aptitude as well, like most things. The barriers to success are mostly self-imposed or the product of the cultural indoctrination that we've all been subject to.

According to the old geezer survey crew chief I posted about above, he said anyone could do it.  There was no magic in the person, it was the copper rods which did the dowsing.  According to him, you just needed to hold the rods level and loosely enough to let them do their thing.

I tried it once with some brass brazing rods bent similarly.  It 'sort of' worked, but I had a pretty good idea where the water was so I would say I was biased.  There was no bias in the experience I described above.  There was no way to bias anything, and it was the first time any of us had been to that property.

You're both probably right there; that it is something everyone can potentially do, and there are probably some things we need to unlearn.

[FCD]

I'm not very knowledgeable about metaphysical things.  I try to reconcile dowsing with scientific reasoning.

I haven't thought about dowsing for quite a while, but when the OP brought it up I started thinking about it again, trying to recall where I had left off in terms of trying to establish a basic theoretical outline which I could then test.  I haven't refined this theory yet, but in a very rough sense I equate the phenomenon to being similar to how magnetic anomaly detection works.  I realize materials such as copper and brass are non-ferrous, so it can't be based on the Earth's magnetic field, but this gives a rough idea of my notion (very broadly).  And, my line of questions are things like:

• Could there be some sort of relationship between a void, or changing densities, which somehow affect the gravitational field above it(?)
  
• Could the dowsing rods be serving as some sort of a receiving antenna which detects some resonant frequency being generated by the presence of (non-compressible) water surrounded by compressible earthen material around it(?)
  
• Along the lines of the above, could this (possibly ultra-low or extremely low) resonant frequency be acting on a parallel beam antenna to change the shape of the antenna to optimize reception when in proximity of water or an underground void(?)
  

One thing we know is, materials such as copper and brass are non-ferrous metals / alloys.  However, both materials are electrical conductors (with copper being better than brass).  So, while this may rule out magnetic fields as the cause of the phenomenon, it does not rule out some type of electrical influence such as RF.

In any case, in order for any empirical tests to be developed, first some pretty exhaustive blind and double blind testing would need to be performed to better prove there is anything to the practice of dowsing in the first place, or if it is just it is just the crazy ramblings of a mad physicist (yours truly).

Just some thoughts while taking a break from mowing some large acreage.  (also known as trying to make an excuse to keep sitting on my butt when there's work to be done!)

[Ksihkehe]

I'm not very knowledgeable about metaphysical things.  I try to reconcile dowsing with scientific reasoning.

Astronomy and astrophysics used to be metaphysics... because what real scientist would think there's an invisible and undetectable force working on all the celestial bodies and all the stars in the sky that helps hold everything together? The parts they couldn't explain were left with God.

They still haven't provided sufficient empirical evidence to explain gravity or even prove that it works anything like what they say. There's a fair bit of evidence that goes against their explanations. They can model how it works sometimes. That model also stops working under certain conditions, but the vast majority of people accept it as a scientific axiom without much thought.

Most everyone can tell you what the hands on a clock mean and know the ratios of their movement, but that doesn't mean they can fix your pocket watch or travel through time by moving the hands. Physics is mostly a self-declared autocracy now, in the domain of people that are merely able to read the hands of a very complicated clock. If you want to know how to build a clock then you're on your own and are likely to get labeled a crackpot if you suggest that maybe there's something yet to be explained making those hands go around. Something invisible that the science elite can't, and likely never will, explain. At least they won't without completely reevaluating where they are and how they got there, while also refusing to turn a blind eye to where those models fail to explain very easily observed phenomena. They can't keep making carveouts for things that don't fit and expect to land on a unified model for everything. 

I think science can explain it and I very much consider myself a scientist, but it's not going to be explained by the science of limited hangouts where conjecture is taboo. They live and die on deductive reasoning that is based on false axioms. Those axioms that are often yet to be proven using the very same standards they are quick to turn into a cudgel against the heretics. It's a cult that has convinced themselves that everyone else is dangerous zealots, the scary purveyors of misinformation that have to be excluded from the conversations. It's not limited to physics at all. It's not limited to hard sciences either, the soft sciences are basically a joke. They started giving out PhDs in make-believe and it's been a matter of which faction controls the castle ever since. Education, social sciences, archeology, are all about the stories they tell to explain the data they choose to call important. Some are worse than others. Math is maybe the least corrupted, but with every step removed from raw mathematics it becomes less a matter of proof and more a matter of persuasion.

My experience with soft science PhDs over the past five years or so has given me the impression that their degrees should all be issued on toilet paper. Most of them aren't scientists, they're story-tellers. Bad story-tellers, no less. They think that the credential gives them some kind of leg up over the plebs.

Consciousness having the ability to create changes in the physical world has been conflated with religion and spirituality, but it's mostly straw men and cognitive blinders... because we have real evidence of it under controlled conditions. Institutionalized science simply chooses to ignore things that they know their existing models will fail to explain. It's a chink in their armor and they know it, so whenever somebody starts poking in those spots they go on the attack. It's incredibly threatening to them. The ontological shock of UFOs that the public might experience is really just a shadow of what the gatekeepers of science will experience if they ever have to come to terms with mind over matter being a part of reality that they can't dogleg around with their models.

Even if we can find some model in which copper -only when wielded by a human- can be moved by invisible forces already within the science we have to work with, that doesn't explain why it also works with a willow switch or quartz pendulum. I have brass rods that I'll be getting around to playing with eventually. I like having a real task, so I'm hoping I'll need to locate something eventually and will try dowsing first as an experiment.

For me, convincing myself wasn't hard because I actively experienced things that I've pondered for many years. I still had to go through the same kind of process that you are, because it's a system that works well. I just can't find an experimental design that works with the existing models. I'm talking in a more broad sense than just dowsing though. Dowsing is a really good one to experiment with though. Even if it's the copper and willow and quartz all reacting to a yet to be defined force, we're still violating a bunch of the consensus science to get there. It will still be stigmatized and ridiculed too.

You're a very smart guy with a strong science background, so nothing I'm saying is anything you didn't already know. It may be assembled and framed in a different way, but you knew that physics is swiss cheese at best. It's a very good cheese, but it's also full of holes that impart no flavor and don't satisfy any hunger. I'm tickled pink that you got to see one of the better examples of everyday psi first hand. I'm not looking to convert anyone, but I think that with enough time a real scientist will convert themselves to some degree or another. Sometimes that conversion is just waving the white flag, but every once in a while somebody jumps teams and science needs more skilled tacticians working in this space. I had enough experience to undergo that conversion for many years before I had the time to really put it all together. It's not a mystery I expect to solve and I expect that any system that eventually is able to provide a model to explain the full spectrum of psi effects will involve new principles beyond my ability to fully understand. I don't understand a whole lot about even our existing models at the fringes now. Still, I'm happy to now be swimming in the primordial soup from which the new science will emerge and to be doing it without a wetsuit.

ETA: I just noticed you have 8 stars on your avatar. I don't know what the stars mean exactly, but the site appears to be slowly turning you into a galaxy. lol.

[NobodySpecial268]

I'm with FCD in that we should probably toss metaphysics out the window, at least for the time being. The KISS principle: Keep It Simple Stupid. I reckon it is basically more down to earth than that.

I have heard that amateur radio people have antennae that are a certain length, a half, quarter length of the radio waves they want to listen to.

The L-rod probably works on a similar principle. I have heard that some dowsers will tune their rods to length with wire cutters.

[Nugget]

I'm with FCD in that we should probably toss metaphysics out the window, at least for the time being. The KISS principle: Keep It Simple Stupid. I reckon it is basically more down to earth than that.

If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.

                                                                                                                      Nikola Tesela

[FCD]

Ksihkehe - You've hit on a couple very interesting topics (to me anyway).  Very relevant in the current times as well.

I've talked about this very subject on numerous occasions over on ATS with Arbitrager (among others) in the science forums.  Specifically, the subject is, the output of many of the 'paper mills' they call higher education today, particularly science (or pseudo-science as it were).  I have long been critical of this.  I will stop short of saying some of what I see shames me (but between you, me and the Internet, it really does...sssshhhh, don't tell anyone though).  My background is what I will call "classical physics" (now), a background filled with empirical research, scientific experimentation and backed up by truckloads of high-order mathematics.  In the 'old days' "classical" used to mean outdated or proven wrong.  Today, it means...'empirical research, scientific experimentation and backed up by truckloads of high-order mathematics'.  Today, anything and everything, any wild or wacko thing someone can come up with can be 'proven' simply by inserting the word "quantum" in front of it.  In politics we talk about 'whataboutism', well many modern science discussions go that same way today, except what follows "what about?" now are words diversionary words like "string theory", "entanglement" and my absolute nemesis, "uncertainty principle".  Basically, you can explain virtually anything with these three terms and no one can ever argue!  Why?  Because it's utopia, pure and simple...just like people's perception of societal goals today.  In other words, it's just not possible, but no one cares.  Quantum physics now serves as an 'excuse' for everyone to claim they are brilliant.  Worse, it seems to make people feel they have license to 'pontificate' on all manner of physical principles without the need to apply any...empirical research, scientific experimentation and backed up by truckloads of high-order mathematics.  In short, much of it is a joke.  I could go into more of why here, but I would be digressing; that's not really the point.

BTW - I don't mean to suggest quantum physics isn't real, it absolutely is.  However, what quantum physics has turned into today is people's 'excuse' to get them out of a debate when they get backed into a corner scientifically or mathematically.  I don't think a day goes by where I don't hear some fantastical claim about "quantum computing".  My gawd, why stop there??  Why limit yourself to a physical box in an equipment rack when you can conjure up some omnipotent cyborg with shapeshifting ability and unlimited compute power???  It's endless.  Yet it happens every single day.  Quantum physics really is a valid area of research, but to some it is just an excuse to stop learning anything further.  Those aren't 'scientists'...they're bullshitters.  Sorry, but it's true.

I point this out because you seemed to touch on a very similar and related theme.  Many 'science' discussions today are really more 'philosophical' discussions from people who can't back that philosophy up with facts.  There were a couple people on ATS who used to do this on a regular basis, and I frequently pointed this out.  Arbitrager was usually right there with me in this vein.  I think some of those people's heart was in the right place, but their perception of their own knowledge far exceeded that of reality...because quantum physics (almost exclusively).

Okay, I'll get off my 'quantum' soapbox now.  I wanted to also address another theme you made in your post which I also thought was very good.  This was the notion of self-perception of intelligence.  You cited a couple examples, but I want to illustrate this a different way.  My sister, BIL and nephew are all PhD's, and all professors at the collegiate level.  My BIL (who has now passed) was the Dean of Economics at a major NY university.  Oh boy, did we have some interesting debates!  I could probably summarize some of those discussions simply by restating the oft used phrase...'Those who can't DO, teach'.  Sadly, it's true.  This is not to say he was not a 'smart' guy, he absolutely was, but his perception of his intelligence made him believe that his intelligence afforded him the ability to be an 'expert' on everything...and he was far from that.  So, sometimes simply being 'smart' (book-smart in reality) gets used as a shield to defend egos, and those egos are often way overinflated because there are so few people who can call "bullshit" on whatever they are saying.  Or worse, those same few can be brow-beaten into submission with some exalted framed shingle on a wall.  Being related to not one, but three of these types gives one unique insight into how they operate.  Oh, and they band together when they get in over their heads too!  But then there's FCD, the dumb cowhand from Wyoming who, like a bulldog, doesn't back down from anything when he knows he's got 'em on the run intellectually (or any other way).  LOL!  They never see that one coming!  Of course, I love them all dearly; I just know how they roll and it's fun to put them in their place sometimes when they get too full of themselves.  So, bottom line, there is some truth in what you are saying with respect to some 'science' existing simply because nobody has the wherewithal to overcome some of these academics in their own self-idolatry.  But that is not 'science', it is pure ego.

When you couple both of these themes together you start to see a natural outcome coalescing.  One might even go as far as calling it confirmation bias.  And, it's true...many times...but not always.  I'm going to digress for just a brief moment with kind of an example of this coalescence.  I once got into an economics discussion with my BIL (risky territory, akin to arguing with God about Moses and all).  The discussion started off simply...by me 'dumbing' things down.  There was a man, a wife, a chicken and a customer (another person).  (My ultimate goal was to get him to admit that socialism doesn't work long term).  This other person had a skill.  Voila', a barter system emerged.  Other person provides a skill, and chicken owner provides an egg.  Real simple.  (Gotta' keep things simple with these academics sometimes because they love to confuse everything with outrageously complex scenarios and fancy words to illustrate their (far) superior intellect.  Also serves their purpose when they start to lose an argument later; gives them escape routes).  

We carefully scaled this model up to include things like international trade, GDP's, deficits, population, borrowing and inflation.  I wrote everything down as we went, and confirmed his complete concurrence on each agreed to item along the way (even agreed on the fancy words.  Dumb cowhands (with Engineering Physics degrees) can do fancy words too!).  Then I injected a socialist economy into the mix, basically over the top of the original man, wife and chicken.  Now it was time to work backwards through our list as this elaborate economy, piece by piece, unraveled.  About halfway down the list, Phil (my BIL) could see where we were headed...and the fact that he wasn't winning, and wouldn't win.  But there was no arguing; everything was written down and agreed upon.  (He was not happy).  First came the "Buts", then the even bigger fancy words suggesting I'd missed details (rejoined with equally fancy words proving we'd missed nothing).  Now it was time to pull rank.  'But...but...you're not a college professor and I am' (probably not exact words, but that was the gist of it).  'Well, you can't engineer, construct and fly an airplane...but I can and DO!  So...Touche!"  I think at one point there was an attempt to excuse himself from the debate to take care of some "errands" which required his personal attention.  In the end, Phil said..."Stop!  And that's why we don't live in a socialist country!"...as if he'd been in agreement with me all along.  LOL!  I didn't dwell on the fact that he'd started from the completely opposite point of view.  That was his ego-parachute, and I knew it, and I'm pretty confident he knew I knew it (but he would never admit it as long as he had a pulse).  

Getting him to admit defeat and then clubbing him with the victory wasn't my goal.  But preventing him from prevailing by using any of the usual bag of tricks academics often use to justify their conclusions absolutely WAS my goal.  I don't think I need to tell you about the smirk of satisfaction on my face after that debate.  Sorry, I digress; just a fun story illustrating some of my points above.

Lastly, science should never be a "final answer" endeavor.  The very nature of science is to continuously challenge established norms.  Yes, 1+1=2, but what if I said I can prove, using mathematics, that 1+1=1 (and, even that 1+1=0).  Almost without exception a discussion like this ends with your opponent saying..."well, you just can't do that" (meaning they take exception to some basic principle such as division by zero, or exponential equivalency (two different methods)).  But the true 'final answer' in reality is..."Why not? Prove to me why we can't do that.  Yes, that is the accepted norm, but you can't prove it other than by saying it violates accepted arithmetical norms and would mess up 2,000 years of accepted history".  That's not empirical proof.  

Note: I am not advocating this train of thought specifically, I merely use it to illustrate a point.  (Don't want anyone running off screaming..."FCD is off on a crusade to prove 1=0!!!"...from the rootops)   

Edit to add:  One last thought.  The people I referred to above who love to initiate what I termed as philosophical discussions under the guise of saying they were scientific love to throw out there as a first line of defense when called on it..."But, but...isn't the whole point of science to imagine new things and think outside the box???  That's all I'm doing!!"  Yes, this is the fundamental point, but the people who say this are missing 'the point'.  At that stage it shouldn't be termed 'science'.  It should be termed what it is...'some cool blue-sky stuff I dreamed up this morning while reading Popular Mechanics and taking a dump.'

[Ksihkehe]

Ksihkehe - You've hit on a couple very interesting topics (to me anyway).  Very relevant in the current times as well.

That was an excellent and thoughtful reply, the kind that is now rare but is what first drew me to discussion forums.

I had no intent elicit feelings of shame about your hard science background. I knew I wanted to be a scientist since I was le 6 years old. I don't find you overly dogmatic or prone to conflating criticism of science with shots at your ego. There are plenty of academics that are true scientists, deep thinkers, and do so with sufficient mastery that they're also true philosophers. Increasingly, it seems like academia has no room for them though.

Of course, the fact that the vast majority of college professors are now vapid, left-wing, politics-obsessed, wet brains, has a lot to do with that.

[FCD]

That was an excellent and thoughtful reply, the kind that is now rare but is what first drew me to discussion forums.

I had no intent elicit feelings of shame about your hard science background. I knew I wanted to be a scientist since I was le 6 years old. I don't find you overly dogmatic or prone to conflating criticism of science with shots at your ego. There are plenty of academics that are true scientists, deep thinkers, and do so with sufficient mastery that they're also true philosophers. Increasingly, it seems like academia has no room for them though.

Of course, the fact that the vast majority of college professors are now vapid, left-wing, politics-obsessed, wet brains, has a lot to do with that.

Trust me, "you" did not shame me in any way!  If anything, you facilitated some discussion and proved my point.  The only people who would have been shamed by anything you said are people who fit the mold I described.  You see, ego is a hard button to find on me, and there are very few of them.  Aviation will do that to a person.