Dowsing,for caves?

[Teresa]

Well, as they say: nothing succeeds like success.

But if these guys are as accurate as you say, they should definitely check out Mr. Randi's Million-Dollar Prize!

Why? Do you also think carnival games aren't rigged?

[hewhocaves]

Just down the street from Scott Hollow Cave, a dowser said there was an underground stream through my Grandma's yard. We have mapped and dye traced it where the Dowser said it would be. Scientific? Was he right? yes. May have been the same guy at Scott Hollow

According to the article I read, Mike Dore did the dowsing at SHC.

as I understand the story, Mike did dowse at Scott Hollow AFTER noticing it was a blind karst valley and after seeing that water was being passed underground there via sinking surface drainage nearby.

Furthermore, if you look at the Scott Hollow map, you'll see that a lot of the maze networks underlie surface sink areas. So it's not even like it was the only blind valley that had passage runinng under it. The next valley over, I believe, has the entrance to Scott Cave (which is a cut off infeeded to the master drainage).

The point is, there was a LOT of information in Mike Dore's posession LONG before he picked up a twig.

Why? Do you also think carnival games aren't rigged?

Randi's challenge isn't rigged by any means. His criteria are equal to good scientific rigor. The carnival hucksters are the psychics, the dowsers and the other woo-woos who think they have the secret to overturn the very fundamentals of science which has eluded the rest of the planet.

Nova did an excellent episode on Randi called "Secrets of the Psychics". There's one particuarly amusing bit where some self professed mind readers are put to the test. Through a cold reading, they try to divine the identity of the person Randi is thinking of. They fail miserably. The person, btw... was Ted Bundy.

The South Park episode on psychics and cold reading is also exellent.

john

[Teresa]

The point is, there was a LOT of information in Mike Dore's posession LONG before he picked up a twig.

So, how does that invalidate dowsing, unless you are working on the assumption that it is paranormal? No one that I know, including myself, who actually does locating has the concept that it is unnatural or 'woo-woo' in the least.
One camp says: if you can't dowse blindfolded, in a place you have never been, with no information, you are no good. Hey, set a hydrologist down under those circumstances, and they're pretty lousy, too. There is a whole lot more intuition, and just lucky informed/subliminal guesses in science than most scientists will admit to. That doesn't mean science doesn't work. I expect if someone had some hydro background, and used locator rods, they could do a kick-a job. The subconscious brain is an amazing thing.

Why? Do you also think carnival games aren't rigged?

Randi's challenge isn't rigged by any means. His criteria are equal to good scientific rigor. The carnival hucksters are the psychics, the dowsers and the other woo-woos who think they have the secret to overturn the very fundamentals of science which has eluded the rest of the planet.

I don't find James Randi a credible objective researcher--my opinion only. I think he uses the trappings of science for his own purposes. He is quite intelligent and clever. But IMO, professional skeptics tend to be true believers in their own lack of belief-- that colors their results just as much as belief in anything they are debunking.

John, you ought to investigate the "new agers" some time. (I don't mean agree with them, I mean talk with them with a skeptical filter in place.) They run the gamut from 1)con-people to 2)sincere believers, to 3)skeptical folk who have encountered something unusual and inexplicable and who are basically forced against their will to accept that science doesn't have all the answers. Randi generally unveils 1) easily and harshly, 2) gently, and doesn't make much headway with 3) since they've already examined the phenomenon more closely than he has time to.

Nova did an excellent episode on Randi called "Secrets of the Psychics". There's one particuarly amusing bit where some self professed mind readers are put to the test. Through a cold reading, they try to divine the identity of the person Randi is thinking of. They fail miserably. The person, btw... was Ted Bundy.

I watch basically no TV save the evening news, but
I've read 4 of Randi's books, (even purchased a couple) plus at least several dozen articles by him in Skeptic Magazine. Randi treats dowsing, mind reading and so called psychic experiences as similar parlor tricks with the intent to deceive. There is no doubt he is an expert at that. Witching has very little to do with mind reading, unless you think the earth is sentient.

What I'd like to see is someone with geological/engineering training for whom personal dowsing or witching works in their business (looking for utilities, water, voids, other specific underground conditions) to keep track of hits and misses over decades. Then, compare that longitudinal record with other forms of 'accepted' remote sensing searches for specific resources-- GPR, seismic, geomag, interferometry, hydro studies, and so forth. Then maybe we could put this discussion to rest.

[hewhocaves]

So, how does that invalidate dowsing, unless you are working on the assumption that it is paranormal? No one that I know, including myself, who actually does locating has the concept that it is unnatural or 'woo-woo' in the least.
One camp says: if you can't dowse blindfolded, in a place you have never been, with no information, you are no good. Hey, set a hydrologist down under those circumstances, and they're pretty lousy, too. There is a whole lot more intuition, and just lucky informed/subliminal guesses in science than most scientists will admit to. That doesn't mean science doesn't work. I expect if someone had some hydro background, and used locator rods, they could do a kick-a job. The subconscious brain is an amazing thing.

the subconscious brain is an amazing thing, but its not that amazing. And you're confusing the issue, by depriving the hydrologist of his five senses. No one is claiming that hydrology doesn't make use of the five senses along with copious field work, research and study.

Now, put a hydrologist into an area and give him a standard field kit and he will be able to eventually tell you all about the area.
Numerous studies have shown that if you put a guy blindfolded in a field wih a stick he'll find absolutely nothing.
Remember, dowsing is defined as divining for water (or something) strictly through the use of a rod or stick or some simple apparatus. In order to properly test this definition you need to remove other possibilities for informatin gatehering, otherwise the data is contaminated. That, Teresa is how science works.

I don't find James Randi a credible objective researcher--my opinion only. I think he uses the trappings of science for his own purposes. He is quite intelligent and clever. But IMO, professional skeptics tend to be true believers in their own lack of belief-- that colors their results just as much as belief in anything they are debunking.

sounds like a personal grudge, then.

John, you ought to investigate the "new agers" some time. (I don't mean agree with them, I mean talk with them with a skeptical filter in place.) They run the gamut from 1)con-people to 2)sincere believers, to 3)skeptical folk who have encountered something unusual and inexplicable and who are basically forced against their will to accept that science doesn't have all the answers. Randi generally unveils 1) easily and harshly, 2) gently, and doesn't make much headway with 3) since they've already examined the phenomenon more closely than he has time to.

Teresa, you assume that (a) i haven't investigated the 'new-agers' and (b) that I wasn't one in the past. In fact, I have done (been) both. I still have a lovely little book about psychokenesis on my shelves... a little relic of days gone by.

Yes, Randi is harsh in his criticism. Too bad. They chose to try and pass their work off as legitimite science. As a result, they have to go through the same peer reveiw that every science goes through. And they have failed MISERABLY.

And the problem with the *believers* (and in light of any hard evidence for them, all they have left is faith) is that they are far too credulous. They WANT it too much to be objective.

I watch basically no TV save the evening news, but
I've read 4 of Randi's books, (even purchased a couple) plus at least several dozen articles by him in Skeptic Magazine. Randi treats dowsing, mind reading and so called psychic experiences as similar parlor tricks with the intent to deceive. There is no doubt he is an expert at that. Witching has very little to do with mind reading, unless you think the earth is sentient.

(a) some dowsers do think the earth is sentient :rolls eyes:
(b) you should watch it. It's a two way street. If you want people to consider you seriously, you should look into the other side as well.

What I'd like to see is someone with geological/engineering training for whom personal dowsing or witching works in their business (looking for utilities, water, voids, other specific underground conditions) to keep track of hits and misses over decades. Then, compare that longitudinal record with other forms of 'accepted' remote sensing searches for specific resources-- GPR, seismic, geomag, interferometry, hydro studies, and so forth. Then maybe we could put this discussion to rest.

So, you're looking for a professional geologist / hydrologist / engineer who as part of their JOB dowses??? Wow. that's just not going to happen. What's going to happen when Wal-mart gets back its report saying there's no caves under where it's proposing it's new superstore and under methods used it reads: dowsing.
There'll be a lawsuit. A massive, massive lawsuit. That company will be out of business by monday morning.
Furthermore, the argument has already been put to rest. Thirty plus years of testing have put it to rest. But from what I've seen so far, you won't ever be content. If we do all this, what's to say that you won't argue that there are cavities deeper than the sensing equipment, that there are microscopic fractures, etc... etc... etc...
In essence you're trying to prove a negative and that's an impossibility because there will always be some angle (maybe it only works at high tides, at certain times of the day, etc...) that's been unchecked. The most you can prove is that a specific 'manifestaion' (for example: that it is a manifestation of the human subconscious) does not work. And what you wind up proving is that the mechanism doesn't work.

Now having said all that, arguing that the subconscious has a part to play is better than most arguments. But here you run into a completely different problem which is that the dowsing itself becomes redundant. The sticks are useless. And yes, people do go on instinct. Instinct is sometimes right. It's also sometimes wrong. It's very fickle. I've gone into areas looking for caves certain that I'd find something that day and come up empty. And I've been in places where i thought it was unlikely and come up big. As human beings, we love to make associations. It's hard wired into us as a species. For the longest time, I thought that looking for caves around pine trees was a waste of time, because it seemed like I never found any there. And then one day i found a cave in an area of pine trees.
But the more important thing to grasp is that I had failed on teh most basic level. I had failed to ask "why". Why are there no caves by pine trees? Is it the acidity of the soil? The angle of the slope? The composition of the gound and bedrock below it? If dowsing were even remotely succesful, scientists would be ripping it apart trying to find out WHY. But it doesn't even get as far as that. There's no success rate for it better than those dictated by random chance. And getting back to scott hollow, if you think about it, from the place where Mike dug, there are two main passages - Mastadon Ave and Patty Lane. There's a whole little area of crawls thirty feet below the entrance and if he had dug any closer to the hill, he'd have come into larger passage. And we don't know what was in the other direction - because no one's ever dug there. those passages might continue, or a lower level might be found. Or it might have become obvious once they reached bedrock to move five feet to the left or the right. The point is that the evidence isn't there. So it's really hard to determine whether even this *hit* is really a hit. Because if every answer proves you right, then its not a real test, either and you've proven nothing.

John

[Realms]

i have wondered about "witching" , "dousing" for a while as well. I watched a well respected hydrologists do it with accuracy. Still I was and still am skeptical on the whole matter. Skeptical because i don't fully understand the science behind it. Many skeptics would say there is no science behind that and that may be the case but one does have to wonder. I feel experiments could be done that would give unbiased analysis. Take the human element out of the equation. Build a self propelled constant velocity vehicle. Place the dousing rods on the vehicle and have it travel along a course that would carry it over a "hot-spot" On the vehicle you would need a self leveling platform and you would need to drive it on smooth pavement or a sidewalk. I stress taking the human element out of the equation.
Things that make me think about the possibility are things I have seen not taken from "witching"
A void in the ground or a shift in density seems to be the factor in witching.
This made me think the last time I broke a magnet. Take a chip out of a magnet and it alters its magnetic field.
Ever did magnaflux testing on components?
Seriously, witching properties may be a very crude example of the above. I'm not saying its true or false, just offering ideas to promote thought.

Nathan

[Teresa]

I think we can quit this now. If you would like to say you've won, and that makes you feel good, go ahead, since we are debating from different premises, and points of view, which cannot be reconciled. My belief system is that the human animal has a bag of skills which are entirely natural but larger than science currently comprehends. Science is included, I agree, but as I expressed in the first post, I don't think science is quite there yet on many fronts, including remote sensing with the human body, aka dowsing. (No, the sticks don't do anything without a human agent.)

Pragmatically, anything which enhances the odds of success is OK by me, whether it be a blue rabbit's foot, a mass spectrometer, a ham sandwich or a couple of bent brazing rods. I apparently have more respect for the subconscious mind and its amazing ways, for gestalt driven intelligence and for instinct (which likely has done more for humanity's survival than formal education) than for deductive reasoning. But then, I got my education in spite of school, not largely because of it.

I'll look for caves and water pipes my way; you look yours and may we both succeed. But I'm not going to take up television-watching.
best
Teresa

[Realms]

I'm sorry you see it that way. I'm just curious and want to learn. Its not about winning or loosing an argument. Seriously though if the rods cross with a human, then they should do the same with whatever holds them. Otherwise the human is simply tilting their hands forward ever so slightly to make the rods move and if that is the case then they shouldn't need them at all and just point their finger and say "dig here"
Disagreeing is your right and I have no problem with that.

Nathan

[hewhocaves]

I think we can quit this now. If you would like to say you've won, and that makes you feel good, go ahead

Teresa,

i'm sorry you're under the impression that I dervie enjoyment or some sort of macho 'thrill' out of debating this. I do not. I responded because (a) this is a public forum and (b) i felt it would contribute to the discussion.

since we are debating from different premises, and points of view, which cannot be reconciled. My belief system is that the human animal has a bag of skills which are entirely natural but larger than science currently comprehends. [/quote]

and this is part of the problem. you confuse science with a belief system, as if it were as dogmatic as religion. Which it isn't. But yes, if you believe that scientists are essentially priests in lab coats, there is nothing I can say to dissuade you from it. However, it would be a mistake to think that you won't receive this kind of feedback when you try to explain a scientific phenomenon through *new age* methods. The NSS is, after all, a memeber of the American Assn. of the Advancement of Science, so (some) of its members have an interest in seeing good science done.

Science is included, I agree, but as I expressed in the first post, I don't think science is quite there yet on many fronts, including remote sensing with the human body, aka dowsing. (No, the sticks don't do anything without a human agent.)

honestly, I have never understood the rationalle behind this argument. Because science does not currently have all the answers people tend to conclude (a) science will never have all the answers (b) the answers that it does have are suspect.
furthermore, these same people seem to believe that their answers are better because they feel right (it's the truthiness of it) first, in the areas where science doesn't have the answer and later where science does have the answer, or catches up.

Pragmatically, anything which enhances the odds of success is OK by me, whether it be a blue rabbit's foot, a mass spectrometer, a ham sandwich or a couple of bent brazing rods.

but that's the thing.. it DOESN'T. As i pointed out before, if there was a statistical sucess rate for dowsing then it would be throughly investigated. But when it was investigated, it was shown to be assorted other things, from outright fraud to a random spike which did not repeat itself.
If, for example, you had 100 people trying to guess the correct of four shapes (your typical ESP experiment) a hundered times, something like three or four people would do remarkably well. They don't have psychic powers, they are simply the statistical fluke. If you got a million people together some few would get them all right, and some few of those few would get a large percentage correct on several successive tries. Those people aren't psychic either, just part of the statistical norm. But say, for example, you want to further investigate this, so you put sensors up against his brain, sensors in the room, sensors on the cards, etc... etc... etc... trying to pick up something, anything which might explain this and you come up completely empty. There is nothing driving this, no mecahnism, no energy source, nothing beig manipulated. It's strictly chance.

Scientists have already done all this.

I apparently have more respect for the subconscious mind and its amazing ways, for gestalt driven intelligence and for instinct (which likely has done more for humanity's survival than formal education) than for deductive reasoning. But then, I got my education in spite of school, not largely because of it.

*sigh* so it comes downt to a standard "i've learned everything outside the system" therefore my knowledge is better than yours.

which would be great, except its people who have formal educations who made all the things which you like and need, from petzel lights to the material coveralls are made of, to rope material manufacturers to the car you drive and the house you live in (i'm speaking metaphorically here... you might have built your own house).

I'll look for caves and water pipes my way; you look yours and may we both succeed. But I'm not going to take up television-watching.
best

you are absolutely correct in that you can look for caves in whatever way you choose. I've gone ridgewalking solely on hunches and followed routes through the woods strictly on guesses.
And if television doesn't suit your fancy, go pick up a copy of 'the demon haunted world' by Carl sagan. it's an excellent read.

John

[ScottM]

http://www.examiner.com.au/story.asp?id=335631

I found this on the Coast to Coast AM website.

[Teresa]

To drag this topic back to some semblance of caving:

1) So far we've got at least two caves which are alleged to have been found via dowsing or witching. Any others?

2) Suspend your disbelief for a moment. What physical characteristics of a void might be those which are causing hits or misses? Some possibilities: changes in microgravity, ground conductivity, magnetic or electrical fields.
Any others?
How would those factors be affected differently if the void is airfilled vs partly air-filled and partly water filled? How about a clay or water filled rock tube?

3) Now, some have said that dowsing hits 'no more than chance'. What do you think would be a good percentage chance to randomly hit an underground cave sized void (using the definition it is large enough to crawl into) in a karst area? How would one calculate probability, so that one could say that any method used is more or less than chance? (IMO- a 50/50 binary mode is way unrealistic-- remember, anyone who consistently misses 2 out of 3 balls thrown at him in baseball is considered a superstar.)

4) Does anyone know of previously unknown caves detected by conventional remote sensing methods which were later dug/blasted into? (Do NOT count well drilling into one--that is hardly 'remote' sensing.)

[hewhocaves]

To drag this topic back to some semblance of caving:

1) So far we've got at least two caves which are alleged to have been found via dowsing or witching. Any others?

honestly, not that I know of. But for completeness' sake, you may want to take a look at what the Bucks' County (Pa) Grotto did in the 1980s. They spent several thousand dollars and several years looking for a cave in the side of a hill that just wasn't there.

2) Suspend your disbelief for a moment.

i'll bite my tongue about that being a bad way to do science and play along. Lets lay down some parameters for the sake of argument.

(a) there is a low cost way to determine whether there is a void underground.
(b) something has to account for the many many misses, be it that this takes special trianing, etc... etc...

What physical characteristics of a void might be those which are causing hits or misses? Some possibilities: changes in microgravity, ground conductivity, magnetic or electrical fields.

for any of these ideas, you have to take into account (a) the sensitivity of the person involved and how it might affect them in daily life. for example, sensetivity wise, how does it affect you when you're driving over a large bridge? in an airplane? walking over a subway or a sewer? In places like NYC, where you have several levels of underground passage hollowed out, this is a significant chunk of area.

Then there's things like: the magnetic field is constantly fluctuating - the poles are moving. I'd honestly discount microgravity, though, for the above reasons. If we were that sensetive to microgravity changes, it would be dangerous to fly, to go in rockets, etc...

Any others?
How would those factors be affected differently if the void is airfilled vs partly air-filled and partly water filled? How about a clay or water filled rock tube?

again... for water filled tubes you have to ask similar questions like: how does this effect ocean travel? maybe this is the cause of seasickness? suddenly you feel disoriented because you have all this water under you and it's like a big, water-filled conduit.

3) Now, some have said that dowsing hits 'no more than chance'. What do you think would be a good percentage chance to randomly hit an underground cave sized void (using the definition it is large enough to crawl into) in a karst area?

Ideally, you'd like to be able to set up some sort of controlled test, where you would want something between a 75% - 95% success rate at the minimum. Remember, we're dealing with primal forces here, so we shouldn't settle for less. The success rate can't be less than 50% at any rate because 50% is chance. (you have two options, it either is there or it is not).

How would one calculate probability, so that one could say that any method used is more or less than chance? (IMO- a 50/50 binary mode is way unrealistic-- remember, anyone who consistently misses 2 out of 3 balls thrown at him in baseball is considered a superstar.)

unfortunatly, that's not an apt analogy. i could counter by saying that an NBA superstar makes 95% of his free throws and the best NFL kickers make 90% of their field goals.
we would definately want to have at least a 70% success rate for the reasons above. We'd also want to know why this works too, even if we have to do it the 'brute force' way (by running the same experiment over and over and over with changing only one element each time). Over successive runs, we should be able to isolate what conditions are ideal (maybe it doesn't work when there's been a thunderstom recently... the electricity in the air interferes and all).

Now I have a question. We're looking for cave entrances, right? But cave entrances are ususally the point at which a passage ends! If anything, we should be picking up big things like Mystic River in scott hollow, not a mess of crawlways right at the entrance! How does that resolve itself? I've never known a dowser to have followed an unknown passage to an area, then say 'dig here' and come up with an entrance and a passage that retraced his steps!!

john

4) Does anyone know of previously unknown caves detected by conventional remote sensing methods which were later dug/blasted into? (Do NOT count well drilling into one--that is hardly 'remote' sensing.)[/quote]

[Steven Johnson]

keep track of hits and misses over decades. Then, compare that longitudinal record with other forms of 'accepted' remote sensing searches for specific resources-- GPR, seismic, geomag, interferometry, hydro studies, and so forth. Then maybe we could put this discussion to rest.

That would definitely do the trick.

[Cheryl Jones]

4) Does anyone know of previously unknown caves detected by conventional remote sensing methods which were later dug/blasted into? (Do NOT count well drilling into one--that is hardly 'remote' sensing.)

Does microgravity sensing count? Two examples Maxwelton Sink and Heavener Runestone State Park

Cheryl

[hewhocaves]

Does microgravity sensing count? Two examples Maxwelton Sink and Heavener Runestone State Park

Cheryl

no. its quite mainstream and the processes are well explained. most definately not dowsing.

john

[Lost]

We don't use twigs, we use #6-8 awg copper wire.