6 ms·

Wow I would have never thought that dowsing was still used and that it would be such a heated argument here on HN. It seems that many people are really into it.

Wow I would have never thought that dowsing was still used and that it would be such a heated argument here on HN. It seems that many people are really into it. Can anyone post actual evidence on the fact that it works that is not anecdotal or an easily falsifiable video? Looking around the net there seems to be 100% scientific consensus that dowsing doesn't work better than a random guess.

irq 4y ago
No, no one can do this because it’s not real. It’s not even pseudoscience, it’s 100% BS.
teawrecks 4y ago
I know, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. People claiming to be professionals who vouch for it. The scientific literacy in this thread is flat out depressing.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  I think you're mostly jumping at shadows, I see a small number of comments claiming dowsing rods work (and they're downvoted for it) but far more comments that amount to saying that dowsing rods don't work but experienced dowsers can make reasonable guesses as to where water may be found. These are very different claims. My comment claiming the latter was initially downvoted, I think by people who thought I was saying that dowsing rods work. They don't, obviously. But that doesn't mean hiring a dowser is categorically irrational.
- blincoln 4y ago
  I think there are a couple of aspects of human psychology at work here. One is that if someone tries to dogmatically argue that some broad category of thing is impossible, because a small, specific subset of that category doesn't hold up to scrutiny, people who have themselves observed some other subset of that same category with their own eyes will tend to assume everything the first person is claiming is wrong. Another is that in the absence of a better explanation, people will tend to develop folk wisdom explanations that run the gamut from "more or less accurate" to "not a good explanation, but correlates actions and effects with reasonable accuracy under certain common conditions" to "not a good explanation, and is no better than random chance at predicting outcomes". The last is that if someone has been told that a particular activity is pseudoscientific nonsense, they will often assume that everything about it is incorrect, even if there is some grain of truth buried in layers of incorrect understanding. This will trigger the first kind of psychological reaction I mentioned. AFAIK, there is no good theory that would allow dowsing for water to work, using any of the types of tools dowsers typically use. There have also been tests performed that seem to rule out specific scenarios. E.g. Randi's challenge in 1979 seems to rule out the ability for supposed dowsers to locate water moving through a buried plastic pipe. On the other hand, as I discussed at length in a separate post, one type of dowsing apparatus (L-shaped metal rods held in some kind of cylindrical handle) can be used to easily detect magnetic fields. It is not subtle, and not the ideomotor effect. So when someone claims that no type of dowsing-style activity is possible, I can be reasonably sure they haven't tried the magnetic field variation, and are arguing from the dogmatic extrapolation of the more specific scientific testing regarding dowsing for water. When "dowsing" for magnetic fields, the rods behave _exactly_ like dowsers claim they do for water (or other material). e.g. at certain points within the field, the rods will cross and feel "stuck" relative to each other. That seems like a weird coincidence if there's only random chance and the ideomotor effect going on elsewhere. People in civil engineering or similar fields will likely have seen the technique used to find buried power lines, which AFAIK actually makes sense in some cases, because the current running through the line will generate a magnetic field. IIRC, it would have to be just one of the conductors, or the fields would cancel each other out, but still physically possible. Everything I've read makes me extremely skeptical of the idea that any sort of dowsing technique can reliably detect water. But that doesn't mean it's not a measurable physical phenomenon related to something else (metal deposits, very dense material, etc.) that's just been incorrectly associated with water because water is relatively common if one digs far enough down. If I had the time, I'd approach it from the angle of "can we reliably reproduce the movement of the dowsing apparatus in different locations, using different dowsers?" and if so, try to figure out what might be causing it, as opposed to assuming it's due to underground water or some other cause. It's probably something that's easier to detect now using existing technology, but it would be interesting to know for sure, and it would bridge the big divide between "I know for sure that all of you are just experiencing the ideomotor effect because I read that somewhere" and "I know that dowsing for all sorts of substances works because in at least some cases, I can feel an actual force acting on the implement(s)."
VLM 4y ago
A lot of it is sophistry in the definition of words and playing word games. The first problem is a sampling bias. Given a claim that a "good enough" EE can build a ham radio transmitter out of parts, we can test that claim by putting 100 college kids across random majors in front of a lab bench, 100% failed to build a radio transmitter, therefore ham radio is pseudoscience. Repeat for brain surgery, mental health therapy, dowsing, etc. Yet economic specialization exists and I assure you I can build a simple morse code ham radio transmitter at a well stocked electronics workbench regardless how many inexperienced members of the general public cannot. The next problem is the sophistry mentioned. All that matters is the bottom line; does a company make more profit if some old timer tells them where to dig, or do they make more money not paying the old timer and digging randomly? Apparently, its more profitable to pay the old timer. No matter how many people are "mad" about scientific management not working and we must replace the old guy with a set of linear equations and a webcam, the company still makes more profit with the old guy on the payroll. Thus science doesn't matter. I find it quite likely that humans do not have x-ray vision. I find it reasonable that an ancient construction worker could unconsciously glance at a subdivision, remember when building similar houses, recall the average length of pipe installed was 10 meters, realize its probably leaking at a joint rather than in the middle, walk until he "feels right" which coincidentally happens to be 10.005 meters from the water main, "yo dig here" and they find the leak. But does it really matter as long as its profitable? Can you only use ChatGPT if you understand every line of source code AND understand the deep meaning behind every integer and floating point value processed, or can you "just use it"? How about abstracting away from ChatGPT and consider the emacs source code, can use use emacs without understanding every line of source code, or even, any line of source code?
- 01acheru 4y ago
  I'm sorry but I fail to see the point of your reply.
  - VLM 4y ago
    Clearly.
krapp 4y ago
It's baffling. I can see how a community of erstwhile engineers and intellectuals can talk themselves into the typical crankery in physics threads because things like quantum mechanics and dark matter aren't simple and don't make intuitive sense. And a strong contingent of the tech community leans alt-right/libertarian now, so all of the anti-vaxx stuff that dominates threads where medicine or vaccination comes up unfortunately makes sense. And a lot of people here seem to believe the UFO narrative, I think mostly just because the government denies it, which for many here is a signal that the government must be hiding something, and also because we're all nerds and nerds want to live in a sci-fi universe. Given the general anti-establishment and contrarian nature of this community, no matter how outlandish an opinion is, someone will probably advocate for it. But dowsing? Fucking dowsing? That's just a step above crystal pendants and reading tea leaves.
- CyberDildonics 4y ago
  a community of erstwhile engineers and intellectuals It might be time to give this idea up - a lot of hacker news articles are click bait filler from large news sites, rehashed old articles, random wikipedia topics and blogs with kitchy, low context contrarian titles. Deeply technical articles don't get a lot of attention. It's pretty close to a general news site with a general internet audience at this point.

irq 4y ago

No, no one can do this because it’s not real. It’s not even pseudoscience, it’s 100% BS.

teawrecks 4y ago

I know, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. People claiming to be professionals who vouch for it. The scientific literacy in this thread is flat out depressing.

LarryMullins 4y ago
I think you're mostly jumping at shadows, I see a small number of comments claiming dowsing rods work (and they're downvoted for it) but far more comments that amount to saying that dowsing rods don't work but experienced dowsers can make reasonable guesses as to where water may be found. These are very different claims. My comment claiming the latter was initially downvoted, I think by people who thought I was saying that dowsing rods work. They don't, obviously. But that doesn't mean hiring a dowser is categorically irrational.
blincoln 4y ago
I think there are a couple of aspects of human psychology at work here. One is that if someone tries to dogmatically argue that some broad category of thing is impossible, because a small, specific subset of that category doesn't hold up to scrutiny, people who have themselves observed some other subset of that same category with their own eyes will tend to assume everything the first person is claiming is wrong. Another is that in the absence of a better explanation, people will tend to develop folk wisdom explanations that run the gamut from "more or less accurate" to "not a good explanation, but correlates actions and effects with reasonable accuracy under certain common conditions" to "not a good explanation, and is no better than random chance at predicting outcomes". The last is that if someone has been told that a particular activity is pseudoscientific nonsense, they will often assume that everything about it is incorrect, even if there is some grain of truth buried in layers of incorrect understanding. This will trigger the first kind of psychological reaction I mentioned. AFAIK, there is no good theory that would allow dowsing for water to work, using any of the types of tools dowsers typically use. There have also been tests performed that seem to rule out specific scenarios. E.g. Randi's challenge in 1979 seems to rule out the ability for supposed dowsers to locate water moving through a buried plastic pipe. On the other hand, as I discussed at length in a separate post, one type of dowsing apparatus (L-shaped metal rods held in some kind of cylindrical handle) can be used to easily detect magnetic fields. It is not subtle, and not the ideomotor effect. So when someone claims that no type of dowsing-style activity is possible, I can be reasonably sure they haven't tried the magnetic field variation, and are arguing from the dogmatic extrapolation of the more specific scientific testing regarding dowsing for water. When "dowsing" for magnetic fields, the rods behave _exactly_ like dowsers claim they do for water (or other material). e.g. at certain points within the field, the rods will cross and feel "stuck" relative to each other. That seems like a weird coincidence if there's only random chance and the ideomotor effect going on elsewhere. People in civil engineering or similar fields will likely have seen the technique used to find buried power lines, which AFAIK actually makes sense in some cases, because the current running through the line will generate a magnetic field. IIRC, it would have to be just one of the conductors, or the fields would cancel each other out, but still physically possible. Everything I've read makes me extremely skeptical of the idea that any sort of dowsing technique can reliably detect water. But that doesn't mean it's not a measurable physical phenomenon related to something else (metal deposits, very dense material, etc.) that's just been incorrectly associated with water because water is relatively common if one digs far enough down. If I had the time, I'd approach it from the angle of "can we reliably reproduce the movement of the dowsing apparatus in different locations, using different dowsers?" and if so, try to figure out what might be causing it, as opposed to assuming it's due to underground water or some other cause. It's probably something that's easier to detect now using existing technology, but it would be interesting to know for sure, and it would bridge the big divide between "I know for sure that all of you are just experiencing the ideomotor effect because I read that somewhere" and "I know that dowsing for all sorts of substances works because in at least some cases, I can feel an actual force acting on the implement(s)."

VLM 4y ago

A lot of it is sophistry in the definition of words and playing word games. The first problem is a sampling bias. Given a claim that a "good enough" EE can build a ham radio transmitter out of parts, we can test that claim by putting 100 college kids across random majors in front of a lab bench, 100% failed to build a radio transmitter, therefore ham radio is pseudoscience. Repeat for brain surgery, mental health therapy, dowsing, etc. Yet economic specialization exists and I assure you I can build a simple morse code ham radio transmitter at a well stocked electronics workbench regardless how many inexperienced members of the general public cannot. The next problem is the sophistry mentioned. All that matters is the bottom line; does a company make more profit if some old timer tells them where to dig, or do they make more money not paying the old timer and digging randomly? Apparently, its more profitable to pay the old timer. No matter how many people are "mad" about scientific management not working and we must replace the old guy with a set of linear equations and a webcam, the company still makes more profit with the old guy on the payroll. Thus science doesn't matter. I find it quite likely that humans do not have x-ray vision. I find it reasonable that an ancient construction worker could unconsciously glance at a subdivision, remember when building similar houses, recall the average length of pipe installed was 10 meters, realize its probably leaking at a joint rather than in the middle, walk until he "feels right" which coincidentally happens to be 10.005 meters from the water main, "yo dig here" and they find the leak. But does it really matter as long as its profitable? Can you only use ChatGPT if you understand every line of source code AND understand the deep meaning behind every integer and floating point value processed, or can you "just use it"? How about abstracting away from ChatGPT and consider the emacs source code, can use use emacs without understanding every line of source code, or even, any line of source code?

01acheru 4y ago
I'm sorry but I fail to see the point of your reply.
- VLM 4y ago
  Clearly.

krapp 4y ago

It's baffling. I can see how a community of erstwhile engineers and intellectuals can talk themselves into the typical crankery in physics threads because things like quantum mechanics and dark matter aren't simple and don't make intuitive sense. And a strong contingent of the tech community leans alt-right/libertarian now, so all of the anti-vaxx stuff that dominates threads where medicine or vaccination comes up unfortunately makes sense. And a lot of people here seem to believe the UFO narrative, I think mostly just because the government denies it, which for many here is a signal that the government must be hiding something, and also because we're all nerds and nerds want to live in a sci-fi universe. Given the general anti-establishment and contrarian nature of this community, no matter how outlandish an opinion is, someone will probably advocate for it. But dowsing? Fucking dowsing? That's just a step above crystal pendants and reading tea leaves.

CyberDildonics 4y ago
a community of erstwhile engineers and intellectuals It might be time to give this idea up - a lot of hacker news articles are click bait filler from large news sites, rehashed old articles, random wikipedia topics and blogs with kitchy, low context contrarian titles. Deeply technical articles don't get a lot of attention. It's pretty close to a general news site with a general internet audience at this point.