Dowsing On Trial

Introduction

I was talking to Kal last week about an experiment I had seen hosted by James Randi, the infamous debunker of new-age and paranormal phenomena. An introduction to the video states:

“In controlled tests, dowsing fails every time. Dowsing is actually nothing more than an example of the ‘ideomotor effect’ – a known psychological phenomenon in which the dowser moves/tips the dowsing apparatus entirely unconsciously, giving the powerful illusion that the device moves of its own accord.
This is also the explanation behind the ouija board and automatic writing.“

Now, there are some things to say about this. Firstly, that both Kal and I would agree that the movement of dowsing rods is probably contributed to by minutely small movements of the hand, wrist or arm in order to facilitate the movement of the rods. That is a strong possibility, and in some bad dowsers this is more than a minute movement – it becomes a gross movement that the dowser claims to be unaware of, despite the fact that everyone observing can see it! The idea that these movements are mostly unconscious to the participant seems to be true as well – or perhaps they’re just not very aware of their proprioceptive capabilities.

Secondly, we are also aware that the “source” of the movement is us. Consciously, semi-consciously, unconsciously, whatever – we feel that we are either an aware channel for the motivation for the rods to move, or we are interpreting the reaction and perhaps even responding to it at some level. Yes, it’s US folks – it’s not God, Nature, evil forces, electromagnetism, or any of the usual explanations. It’s US doing it. That is not the point in question – the question is HOW and WHY – in response to WHAT are those rods moving, because WE don’t know (yet)! We may never know. We may not even need to know.

Thirdly, the test that is always done is a test that I have tried myself, and failed in just the same way! Oh yes. I have done the test for finding a hidden object while bring scutinised, and with the aim of proving that dowsing really works. It didn’t. I got no better than chance. Just like the double-blind hidden object tests which are used to discredit dowsing. And yet I continued to dowse. WHY???

Well, because I know that when I am out in nature, dowsing for energies, I find patterns that I don’t believe I could create myself. My expectations are constantly overturned, and my arrogance or pride is ALWAYS overturned in the most embarrassing way. That much I can guarantee you! Try to impress with dowsing and you’ll come a cropper – I assure you of that much! Something, somewhere, somehow prevents its “abuse” for fun and crushes the ego when it gets involved in the activity. So, we need tests that both include and exclude the ego. We need tests of many varieties, in different conditions, for different aims.

Are the debunkers right?

Debunkers love to have their “controlled test” and to “prove” that activities such as dowsing are poppycock. It gives them a feeling of self-righteousness, I’m sure. “See – you’re far better off with just your plain old boring five senses. We were right all along – don’t be fooled again!”

Agreed. Don’t be fooled. And I have no intention of being a fool. I treat rational thought as a truly important development of the human consciousness. But it doesn’t have to end there. It doesn’t have to be the be-all-and-end-all of all thought, as some would have you believe. Mainly people who are very successful in that sphere of human intelligence – Mr Richard Dawkins, I’m talking to you. Dawkins did a programme for TV recently called “Root of all evil?” in which he countered organised religion, new-age thinking and all manner of ‘erroneous philosophy’. Honestly, I was with him 95% of the way, as inevitably the charlatans in the various fields were shown up as the cynical exploiters that they are. I have no argument with that.

So, why did the dowsing experiment from James Randi, and the one performed by Richard Dawkins, both fail so miserably? I have an idea why, but I don’t really know. So I have come up with what I believe is a much fairer, more comprehensive, and equally rigorous (if not more so) series of tests that will once and for all prove, if only to myself, whether there really is something in this dowsing lark.

The Testing

Here is what I propose:-

AIM: To test dowsing skills in a number of conditions to determine the accuracy and consistency of results.

PARAMETERS:

• All tests must be done on the same day and in the same place to exclude the influence of as many variable factors as possible.
• Any feelings of uncertainty, or more than one answer or outcome, should be vocalised by the dowser and recorded during the test as they occur, so that they can be reviewed afterwards.
• The degree of certainty in the result of the dowsing should be rated and recorded on a simple scale.
• The tests should be performed by someone who has never dowsed before as well as experienced dowsers to note any variance or similarity.
• All tests should also be done by someone without the use of dowsing rods – just picking an answer.
• The questions to be asked by the dowser should be explicitly stated before the test is attempted so that all dowsers ask the same question and agree the phrasing is suitable to produce results.
• Any feelings within the dowser should be vocalised and recorded so that the effect can be analysed later.

SKILLS TESTED:

• Finding an earth energy line at a sacred site never visited by the dowsers before
• Asking a question about the past, the present and the future
• Finding a hidden sample of water (holy well water/tap water), crystal (charged and uncharged), and an object treasured by someone (something someone has invested emotion into) in a double-blind test
• Finding a tree’s aura
• Dowsing a standing stone at a sacred site never visited by the dowsers before

CONDITIONS:

• Unpressured and alone
• Observed by a sympathetic observer who is willing the tests to work
• Observed by a cynical or hostile observer who is willing the tests to fail
• Watched by a crowd of random people whose sympathies are unknown
• Watched by a crowd of sympathetic people willing the tests to work

This is our starting point. From this other tests may suggest themselves, and we can take the experimentation further. However, if it turns out that none of these tests produce anything more than random chance, then we will have to consider our position! It’s make or break with this one! No excuses!

Gwas

Taking it further

=======================

ADDENDUM: 13th November 2009

As you can see this original post was written over a year ago. Since that time we have discovered so much more about the concepts of dowsing. One of the important things we have learned is that IT CANNOT BE TESTED. Now, that seems so much like a cop-out that it just HAS to be explained. Here is my explanation of why this is the case, for me at least, and, judging by the dismal failure of all other dowsing tests, why it appears to be generally true.

Dowsing is NOT the interaction with an as-yet undiscovered energy force that is simply waiting for science to discover its particulars. It is about interacting with the life force of Nature itself – with “chi”, vouivre, newifre, awen, ki, od, and all the other names that have been given to it since the beginning of recorded history. Anyone who approaches dowsing with the expectation of unveiling this layer of existence using probes, measures and a set of guidelines is setting themselves up for a lifetime of frustration.

Dowsing IS the interaction of a human mind with the life force of Nature. As such it is subject to so many variables that are uncontrollable, especially in combination with each other, that predicting an outcome is as likely as winning the lottery. In this interaction there are such elements as: your emotional state, your skill in dowsing, your pre-conditioning to the response, how you programmed the response of the rods,  how intuitive you are on the day, your ability to achieve the state of “no-mind” without stress when under pressure, the quality of the question being asked (i.e. how binary is the answer), and so on.

And that’s just YOUR side of the equation. The other side is how you have developed your relationship with The Other that is producing the response, whatever you understand that to be. How will The Other respond? In my experience it will not be commanded. What is a “scientific test”, if not a requirement to produce a consistent response ON DEMAND? Nature, or The Other, will not yield to being asked to respond as YOU will it to be. You may only ASK graciously for her compliance with your request, and then trust to hope.

“It’s a cop out!” I hear some people cry. Good. Cry away. I now have the authority of experience, and I know this to be so. What is YOUR experiencial evidence in this field?

Needless to say – no test as described above will be being performed by us. You may take it and use it if you wish, but you will not succeed. Or rather, as is often the way, you will trial it by yourself, succeed, then try it again when other people are watching, and it will go hopelessly wrong. That I can guarantee!

Gwas.