Editing Dowsing

{{About|the divination method}}

{{Use American English|date=October 2022}}

A Y-shaped twig or rod, or two L-shaped ones, called '''dowsing rods''' or '''divining rods''' are normally used, and the motion of these are said to reveal the location of the target material. The motion of such dowsing devices is generally attributed to random movement, or to the [[ideomotor phenomenon]],<ref name="Zusne 1989">Zusne, Leonard; Jones, Warren H. (1989). ''Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Magical Thinking''. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. pp. 105–110. {{ISBN|978-0-805-80507-9}}</ref><ref name="Novella 2002">Novella, Steve; Deangelis, Perry. (2002). ''Dowsing''. In [[Michael Shermer]]. ''The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience''. ABC-CLIO. pp. 93–94. {{ISBN|1-57607-654-7}} "Despite widespread belief, careful investigation has demonstrated that the technique of dowsing simply does not work. No researcher has been able to prove under controlled conditions that dowsing has any genuine divining power... A more likely explanation for the movement of a dowser's focus is the ideomotor effect, which entails involuntary and unconscious motor behavior."</ref><ref name="a5FaR">Lawson, T. J; Crane, L. L. (2014). ''Dowsing Rods Designed to Sharpen Critical Thinking and Understanding of Ideomotor Action''. ''[[Teaching of Psychology (journal)|Teaching of Psychology]]'' 41 (1): 52–56.</ref> a psychological response where a subject makes motions unconsciously.

Many modern dowsers use a pair of L-shaped metal rods. One rod is held in each hand, with the short arm of the L held upright, and the long arm pointing forward. The upright arm is often free to rotate inside a tube. When something is "found," the rods move in synchrony. Depending on the dowser, they may cross over or swing apart.<ref name="inglis245"/> Glass or plastic rods have also been accepted. Straight rods are also sometimes used for the same purposes, and were common in early 19th century [[New England]].

* [[Physicist]]s [[John G. Taylor|John Taylor]] and Eduardo Balanovski reported in 1978 a series of experiments they conducted that searched for unusual [[electromagnetic field]]s emitted by dowsing subjects; they did not detect any.<ref name="irk2l">{{cite journal|author1=Taylor, J. G. |author2=Balanovski, E. |year=1978|title=Can electromagnetism account for extra-sensory phenomena?|journal=Nature|volume=276|issue=5683|pages=64–67|doi=10.1038/276064a0|pmid=740020|bibcode=1978Natur.276...64B|s2cid=4316473}}</ref>

Five years after the Munich study was published, [[Jim T. Enright]], a professor of [[physiology]] who emphasized correct data analysis procedure, contended that the study's results are merely consistent with [[statistical fluctuations]] and not significant. He believed the experiments provided "the most convincing disproof imaginable that dowsers can do what they claim",<ref name="enright">{{cite web |url = http://www.csicop.org/si/show/testing_dowsing_the_failure_of_the_munich_experiments |title = The Failure of the Munich Experiments |access-date = 2006-11-14 |last = Enright |first = Jim T. |date = January–February 1999 |work = Skeptical Inquirer |publisher = CSICOP |quote = The researchers themselves concluded that the outcome unquestionably demonstrated successful dowsing abilities, but a thoughtful re-examination of the data indicates that such an interpretation can only be regarded as the result of wishful thinking. |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20091117185131/http://www.csicop.org/si/show/testing_dowsing_the_failure_of_the_munich_experiments/ |archive-date = 2009-11-17 |url-status = dead}}</ref> stating that the data analysis was "special, unconventional and customized". Replacing it with "more ordinary analyses",<ref name="enright1995">{{cite journal |last1 = Enright |first1 = J. T. |year = 1995 |title = Water dowsing: The Scheunen experiments |journal = Naturwissenschaften |volume = 82 |issue = 8| pages = 360–369 |doi=10.1007/s001140050198|doi-broken-date = 1 November 2024 }}</ref> he noted that the ''best'' dowser was on average {{convert|4|mm|in|2|sp=us|lk=on}} out of {{convert|10|m|ft|2|sp=us|lk=on}} closer to a mid-line guess, an advantage of 0.04%, and that the five other "good" dowsers were on average farther than a mid-line guess. Enright emphasized that the experimenters should have decided beforehand how to statistically analyze the results; if they only afterward chose the statistical analysis that showed the greatest success, then their conclusions would not be valid until replicated by another test analyzed by the same method. He further pointed out that the six "good" dowsers did not perform any better than chance in separate tests.<ref name="enright1996">{{cite journal |last=Enright |first=J. T. |date=June 1996 |title=Dowsers lost in a Barn |journal=Naturwissenschaften |publisher=Springer Berlin / Heidelberg |volume=83 |issue=6 |pages=275–277 |issn=1432-1904 |url=http://www.idt.mdh.se/kurser/ct3340/archives/ht05/assignment-2d-dowsing-articles/Articles%202-3-Betz-Enright.pdf |access-date=2009-09-26 |doi=10.1007/BF01149601 |bibcode=1996NW.....83..275E |s2cid=8201640 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120328103212/http://www.idt.mdh.se/kurser/ct3340/archives/ht05/assignment-2d-dowsing-articles/Articles%202-3-Betz-Enright.pdf |archive-date=2012-03-28 |url-status=dead}}</ref> Another study published in ''[[Pathophysiology (journal)|Pathophysiology]]'' hypothesized that such experiments as this one that were carried out in the twentieth century could have been interfered with by man-made radio frequency radiation, as test subjects' bodies absorbed the radio waves and unconscious hand movement reactions took place following the standing waves or intensity variations.<ref name="O54Fh">{{cite journal |title=Dowsing can be interfered with by radio frequency radiation |url=http://www.pathophysiologyjournal.com/article/S0928-4680(12)00039-9/pdf |journal=Pathophysiology |volume=19 |issue=2 |year=2012| pages=89–94 |vauthors=Huttunen P, Niinimaa A, Myllylä R |doi=10.1016/j.pathophys.2012.01.004 |pmid=22365422}}</ref>