Talk to me about "water witching" for a well

[RThomas]

Quote:
The nice part about science is it is all about questioning and theory, but not always about proof. I am a science teacher, actually a STEM teacher, and I also teach dowsing on the side.
One study has debunked it, one study has proven it. So take a choice it's up to you which one you want to believe or follow.

I think the word you are looking for is "evidence". If you're a science teacher, then I'm sure you're familiar with double blind testing. Anecdotal stories and confirmation bias aren't evidence.

Could you provide a link to the study that has "proven" it? If you can prove it works, there's a million dollars waiting for you. http://www.randi.org/library/dowsing/

 

[ChickenAlgebra]

I can't witch water if you paid me, I have NO skill at it at all. 14 y/o DD sort of can, but she's really really got to focus on it. However, 3 y/o DD. That child has just walked along water lines without thinking about it. Ask her what she's doing, she's walking the water.

Since I'm pretty sure a 3 y/o has no evil plot to scam anyone, and I know the area she's walking is over water, I'm pretty sure she can witch water.

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
The nice part about science is it is all about questioning and theory, but not always about proof. I am a science teacher, actually a STEM teacher, and I also teach dowsing on the side.
One study has debunked it, one study has proven it. So take a choice it's up to you which one you want to believe or follow.

I think the word you are looking for is "evidence". If you're a science teacher, then I'm sure you're familiar with double blind testing. Anecdotal stories and confirmation bias aren't evidence.

Could you provide a link to the study that has "proven" it? If you can prove it works, there's a million dollars waiting for you. http://www.randi.org/library/dowsing/

I'd also love to see these studies that showed dowsing was successful more often than can be accounted for by random chance, in true controlled conditions. I think it's something more akin to cold-reading -- people remember the "hits" more than the "misses" and so they say it works, but seem to forget that just as often it didn't work. So having read too many challenges that expert dowsers have failed in controlled settings, I'll continue to say it's bunk -- until someone comes up with a peer-reviewed study that says otherwise.

But it's a fun activity, I suppose, so there's not much harm in it. Unless you're the person paying to drill a well in the spot where a dowser tells you, and you don't find anything.

 

[WriterofWords]

Quote:
I think the word you are looking for is "evidence". If you're a science teacher, then I'm sure you're familiar with double blind testing. Anecdotal stories and confirmation bias aren't evidence.

Could you provide a link to the study that has "proven" it? If you can prove it works, there's a million dollars waiting for you. http://www.randi.org/library/dowsing/

I'd also love to see these studies that showed dowsing was successful more often than can be accounted for by random chance, in true controlled conditions. I think it's something more akin to cold-reading -- people remember the "hits" more than the "misses" and so they say it works, but seem to forget that just as often it didn't work. So having read too many challenges that expert dowsers have failed in controlled settings, I'll continue to say it's bunk -- until someone comes up with a peer-reviewed study that says otherwise.

But it's a fun activity, I suppose, so there's not much harm in it. Unless you're the person paying to drill a well in the spot where a dowser tells you, and you don't find anything.

You are free to say what you want and believe what you want. Do a search of your own to see the studies. Put a phrase in your search engine such as Scholarly studies on dowsing, if I do it and post the links then the doubter can say I posted only what I wanted to, this way you read them for yourself, both the positive and the negative.

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
I'd also love to see these studies that showed dowsing was successful more often than can be accounted for by random chance, in true controlled conditions. I think it's something more akin to cold-reading -- people remember the "hits" more than the "misses" and so they say it works, but seem to forget that just as often it didn't work. So having read too many challenges that expert dowsers have failed in controlled settings, I'll continue to say it's bunk -- until someone comes up with a peer-reviewed study that says otherwise.

But it's a fun activity, I suppose, so there's not much harm in it. Unless you're the person paying to drill a well in the spot where a dowser tells you, and you don't find anything.

You are free to say what you want and believe what you want. Do a search of your own to see the studies. Put a phrase in your search engine such as Scholarly studies on dowsing, if I do it and post the links then the doubter can say I posted only what I wanted to, this way you read them for yourself, both the positive and the negative.

Since reading this post, I have been, and every time I find one study that claims it worked, I find others that cite flaws in that study, and improper statistical analysis (such as looking at a group which as a whole performs no better than chance, then picking out a handful and claiming they did much better than chance...this is like tossing a coin 1000 times and getting about 50-50 heads and tails, but then looking at a series of 20 tosses in a row that were all heads and claiming something weird was going on). And most of the studies promoting dowsing were published in various paranormal journals.


ETA -- I meant to say "since reading this THREAD, not meaning just the previous post.

Here's a common theme coming up when I read analyses of studies supporting dowsing -- most dowsers were no better than chance, and the few that were touted as having extraordinary success achieved it in only some trials, while in other trials they did no better than chance. Thus what seems to be happening is, like I said before, a case of remembering the "hits" and forgetting the "misses" and thus painting a picture of success. So some dowsers, sometimes, get it right, but other times, they are wrong. And most dowsers don't ever do better than chance. Now, tell me, if you went to a doctor who treated 1000 patients with terminal illnesses, lost 975 but experienced total remission with 25, would you say he was successful? That's what the studies I keep finding seem to be to me. Sometimes we see a pattern in the noise and give it unnecessary meaning. It's just the way our human brains work.

My opinion is that the movements of whatever dowsing tool is used is due to subconscious thoughts. The dowser believes, for whatever reason, that water (or whatever he's seeking) is in a spot, and indirectly causes his tool to move. If a person is walking around outside, he might be seeing things in the environment which clue him in to what he's seeking. If for water, the location and type of vegetation can be a clue to underground water. Or geological information. So perhaps these people are skilled at finding water based on these clues, but the idea that using a dowsing rod (or whatever) is what finds the source doesn't have evidence. The dowser would be just as successful walking around and saying "how about here?"

I'm still looking for an example of dowsers being led to an area while blindfolded, and walking around unable to see natural features in the environment. I haven't found one yet, but I'll keep looking.

I'm keeping an open mind, but not so open that my brain falls out. (no offense meant...it's an old saying in science that I think is funny)

 

[Mac in Wisco]

I'm not sure if you can find water that way, but I've done it to find buried utility lines and metallic water pipes (not leaks though). There is something magnetic to it as I've used steel welding rod with great success, but I was baffled one day when it wasn't working and someone pointed out that I was using aluminum filler rod.

 

[Ema]

Quote:
witching a well does actually work, no it is not standard procedure. where is the flow rate low at the source of the well or inside the house? If at the house then you need to check your pump to make sure it at the right PSI, either way I would suggest you get someone that knows what they are doing when it comes to wells, pumps etc...the reason, is because last winter we lost pressure and my dh, well he called a friend who somewhat knew what he was doing at we lost the prime, took 3 days to get the prime back, and why because we had a very deep well that is tapped into an underground natural spring. Never again will I get anyone to touch the pump or anything to do with the well other than one of the guys from the well drilling company, LOL.

Good luck,

Ema

 

[Gardengirl 2011]

Interesting thread! I would love to figure out HOW the heck the previous owners had the irrigation lines run. All I know is that it was a "friend" that did the work for them. What I've found while digging areas for flower and vegetable gardens makes no sense to me. As one example, I've never seen anyone actually put a bend in a PVC line itself. It almost arched in a curved fashion. So when I dig, I'm very careful, lol.

Maybe I'll have to give this a shot!

 

[WriterofWords]

Like I've said many times, anyone can prove or disprove anything they want. I like to think my brain is still in my head, my students would appreciate it I know. I want to with the OP the best of luck with her property. For those asking questions in PM I'll still answer you, the polite ones, but I'm not going to respond on the thread anymore, it's in too much danger of taking an ugly turn.