إعـــــــلان

**صباحو** · 2016-03-28, 10:46 AM

Other French Catholic priests followed in Bouly's mystical footsteps. Father Alexis Mermet claimed he discovered 'pendulum diagnosis' and published his discoveries in a book called How I Proceed in the Discovery of Near or Distant Water, Metals, Hidden Objects and Illnesses. Father Jean-Louis Bourdoux's contribution to this modern mysticism in the name of science was called Practical Notions of Radiesthesia for Missionaries. Bourdoux claimed that "thanks to the new science called radiesthesia, you will be able, without any medical training and hardly any funds, to succor both believers and pagans." Father Jean Jurion went even further by claiming he had cured a man of inoperable brain cancer using only a pendulum and homeopathic remedies.* [Info on French Catholic priests taken from Principles & Practice of Radiesthesia {1935} by Abbé Alexis Mermet.] I suppose it is not surprising to find that men who believe there are real demons that invade people and that can be exorcised by special rituals and incantations should also believe they can find underground water and bombs, and cure cancers, by waving a stick or holding a string with a coin dangling from its end. It is also not surprising to find New Age healers who trust their dowsing pendulums more than scientific medicine. Not to be outdone by a group of French priests, the English established The Radionic Association in 1943. These folks still flourish as teachers and offer a degree in radionics. They boast that "Medical Doctors, Homoeopaths [sic], Councellors [sic], and many other practitioners have found that dowsing, radionic analysis, and radionic treatment provide an important extension to their existing repertoire." Isn't it great to live in a world where some of our most devoted healers have no medical training?
Map dowsers use a dowsing device, usually a pendulum, over maps to locate oil, minerals, persons, water, etc. However, the prototype of a dowser is the field dowser who walks around an area using a forked stick to locate underground water. When above water, the rod points downward. (Some dowsers use two rods. The rods cross when above water.) Various theories have been given as to what causes the rods to move: electromagnetic or other subtle geological forces, suggestion from others or from geophysical observations, ESP and other paranormal explanations, etc. Most skeptics accept the explanation of William Carpenter (1852). The rod moves due to involuntary motor behavior, which Carpenter dubbed ideomotor action.

In the 16th century, Agricola described mining dowsers using a forked twig to find metals (De re metallica). He didn't think much of the practice. A miner, he wrote:

should not make us of an enchanted twig, because if he is prudent and skilled in the natural signs, he understands that a forked stick is of no use to him, for ... there are natural indications of the veins which he can see for himself without the help of twigs. (Quoted in Zusne and Jones 1989: 106)

Despite this sage advice, dowsers continue to dowse, claiming that they have a special power and that what they are dowsing for emanates energy, rays, radiations, vibrations, and the like

**صباحو** · 2016-03-28, 10:49 AM

Does dowsing work ؟

Some people are less interested in why the rods move than in whether dowsing works. Obviously, many people believe it does. Dowsing and other forms of divination have been around for thousands of years. There are large societies of dowsers in America and Europe and dowsers practice their art every day in all parts of the world. There have even been scientists in recent years who have offered proof that dowsing works. There must be something to it, then, or so it seems.
Testing has been sparse, however. For one thing, it is difficult to establish a "baseline against which a diviner's performance may be compared" (Zusne and Jones 1989: 108). In 1949, an experiment was conducted in Maine by the American Society for Psychical Research. Twenty-seven dowsers "failed completely to estimate either the depth or the amount of water to be found in a field free of surface clues to water, whereas a geologist and an engineer successfully predicted the depth at which water would be found in 16 sites in the same field...." (Zusne and Jones 1989: 108; reported in Vogt and Hyman: 1967). There have been a few other controlled tests of dowsing and all produced only chance results (ibid.). [In addition to Vogt and Hyman, see R. A. Foulkes (1971) "Dowsing experiments," Nature, 229, pp.163-168); M. Martin (1983-1984). "A new controlled dowsing experiment." Skeptical Inquirer. 8(2), 138-140; J. Randi (1979). "A controlled test of dowsing abilities." Skeptical Inquirer. 4(1). 16-20; and D. Smith (1982). "Two tests of divining in Australia." Skeptical Inquirer. 4(4). 34-37.]
The testimonials of dowsers and those who observe them provide the main evidence for dowsing. The evidence is simple: dowsers find what they are dowsing for and they do this many times. What more proof of dowsing is needed? The fact that this pattern of dowsing and finding something occurs repeatedly leads many dowsers and their advocates to make the causal connection between dowsing and finding water, oil, minerals, golf balls, etc. This type of fallacious reasoning is known as post hoc reasoning and is a very common basis for belief in paranormal powers. It is essentially unscientific and invalid. Scientific thinking includes being constantly vigilant against self-deception and being careful not to rely upon insight or intuition in place of rigorous and precise empirical testing of theoretical and causal claims. Every controlled study of dowsers has shown that dowsers do no better than chance in finding what they are looking for.
Most dowsers do not consider it important to doubt their dowsing powers or to wonder if they are self-deceived. They never consider doing a controlled scientific test of their powers. They think that the fact that they have been successful over the years at dowsing is proof enough. When dowsers are scientifically tested and fail, they generally react with genuine surprise. Typical is what happened when James Randi tested some dowsers using a protocol they all agreed upon. If they could locate water in underground pipes at an 80% success rate they would get $10,000 (now the prize is over $1,000,000). All the dowsers failed the test, though each claimed to be highly successful in finding water using a variety of non-scientific instruments, including a pendulum. Says Randi, "the sad fact is that dowsers are no better at finding water than anyone else. Drill a well almost anywhere in an area where water is geologically possible, and you will find it."
Some of the strongest evidence for dowsing comes from Germany. Tests were done in a barn (Scheune is the German word for barn) and are referred to by J. T. Enright as the "Scheunen" experiments. In 1987 and 1988, more than 500 dowsers participated in more than 10,000 double-blind tests set up by physicists in a barn near Munich. The researchers claim they empirically proved "a real dowsing phenomenon." Jim Enright of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography evaluated the data and concluded that the so-called "real dowsing phenomenon" can reasonably be attributed to chance. His argument is rather lengthy, but here is a taste of it:

The long and the short of it is that dowsing performance in the Scheunen experiments was not reproducible. It was not reproducible inter-individually: from a pool of some 500 self-proclaimed dowsers, the researchers selected for their critical experiments 43 candidates whom they considered most promising on the basis of preliminary testing; but the investigators themselves ended up being impressed with only a few of the performances of only a small handful from that select group. And, even more troublesome for the hypothesis, dowsing performance was not reproducible intra-individually: those few dowsers, who on one occasion or another seemed to do relatively well, were in their other comparable test series usually no more successful than the rest of the "unskilled" dowsers (Enright “Water Dowsing: the Scheunen Experiments,” Naturwissenschaften, vol. 82 1995).

The barn study itself is curious. It seems clearly to have been repudiated by another German study done in 1992 by a group of German scientists and skeptics. The Gesellschaft zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften (GWUP) [Society for the Scientific Investigation of the Parasciences] set up a three-day controlled test of some thirty dowsers, mostly from Germany. The test was done at Kassel, north of Frankfurt, and televised by a local television station. The test involved plastic pipe buried 50 centimeters in a level field through which a large flow of water could be controlled and directed. On the surface, the position of the pipe was marked with a colored stripe, so all the dowsers had to do was tell whether there was water running through the pipe. All the dowsers signed a statement that they agreed the test was a fair test of their abilities and that they expected a 100% success rate. The results were what one would expect by chance (Randi 1995). Defenders of dowsing do not care for these results, and continue to claim that the barn study provides scientific proof of dowsing.

.

**صباحو** · 2016-03-28, 10:51 AM

another German study

Further evidence for dowsing has been presented by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) [the German Society for Technical Co-operation] sponsored by the German government. They claim, for example, that in some of their water dowsing efforts they had success rates above 80% "results which, according to responsible experts, could not be reached by means of classical methods, except with disproportionate input." Of particular interest is a report by University of Munich physicist Hans-Dieter Betz, "Unconventional Water Detection: Field Test of the Dowsing Technique in Dry Zones," published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration in 1995. (This is the same Betz who, with J. L. König, authored a book in 1989 on German government tests proving the ability of dowsers to detect E-rays.) The report covers a ten-year period and over 2000 drillings in Sri Lanka, Zaire, Kenya, Namibia, Yemen and other countries. Especially impressive was an overall success rate of 96 percent achieved in 691 drillings in Sri Lanka. "Based on geological experience in that area, a success rate of 30-50 percent would be expected from conventional techniques alone," according to Betz. How he arrived at that statistic is unknown, especially since Sri Lanka gets 100-200 inches (2,500-5,000 mm) of rain a year.* "What is both puzzling yet enormously useful is that in hundreds of cases the dowsers were able to predict the depth of the water source and the yield of the well to within 10 or 20 percent. We carefully considered the statistics of these correlations, and they far exceeded lucky guesses."

Betz ruled out chance and the use of landscape and geological features by dowsers as explanations for their success. He also ruled out "some unknown biological sensitivity to water." Betz thinks that there may be "subtle electromagnetic gradients" resulting from fissures and water flows which create changes in the electrical properties of rock and soil. Dowsers, he thinks, somehow sense these gradients in a hypersensitive state. "I'm a scientist," says Betz, "and those are my best plausible scientific hypotheses at this point....we have established that dowsing works, but have no idea how or why." Of course, it is possible that his dowsers are smarter than Betz and look for obvious signs of water like places where the grass is greener and lowest points in the terrain (Randi 1995).
There are some puzzling elements to Betz's conclusions, however. Most of his claims concern a single dowser named Schröter. Who observed this dowser or what conditions he worked under remain unknown. Betz is a physicist and what knowledge he has of hydrogeology is unknown. Furthermore, Betz's speculation that dowsers are hypersensitive to subtle electromagnetic gradients does not seem to be based upon scientific data. In any case, the hypothesis was not tested and I am not sure how one would go about testing such a claim. At the very least, one would expect that geological instruments would be able to detect such "electromagnetic gradients."
When others have done controlled tests of dowsers, the dowsers do no better than chance and no better than non-dowsers (Vogt and Hyman; Hyman; Enright 1995, 1996; Randi 1995). Some of Betz's data are certainly not scientific, e.g., the subjective evaluations of Schröter regarding his own dowsing activities. Much of the data is little more than a report that dowsing was used by Schröter and he was successful in locating water. Betz assumes that chance or scientific hydrogeological procedures would not have produced the same or better results. It may be true that in one area they had a 96% success rate using dowsing techniques and that "no prospecting area with comparable sub-soil conditions is known where such outstanding results have ever been attained." However, this means nothing for establishing that dowsing had anything to do with the success. Analogous sub-soil condition seems to be an insufficient similarity to justify concluding that dowsing, rather than chance, or use of landscape or geological features, must account for the success rate.
Betz seems to have realized that without some sort of testing, reasonable people would not accept that it had been established that dowsing is a real phenomenon based upon the above types of data. He then presents what he calls "tests" to establish that dowsing is real. The first test involves Schröter again. A Norwegian drilling team dug two wells and each failed to hit water. The dowser came in and allegedly not only hit water but predicted the depth and flow. Apparently, we have the dowser's own word on this. In any case, this is not a test of dowsing, however impressive it might seem.
In the second test, Betz asserts that dowsers can tell how deep water is because "the relevant biological sensations during dowsing are sufficiently different to allow for the required process of distinction and elimination." He has no evidence for this claim. In any case, in this "test" Schröter again is asked to pick a place to dig a well and again he is successful. This time his well is near a well already dug and known to be a good site. Betz claims that there were some geological formations that would have made the dowser's predictions difficult, but again this was not a scientific test of dowsing.
The third test was a kind of contest between the dowser and a team of hydrogeologists. The scientific team, about whom we are told nothing significant, studied an area and picked 14 places to drill. The dowser then went over the same area after the scientific team had made their choices and he picked 7 sites to drill. (Why they did not both pick the same number of sites is not explained.) A site yielding 100 liters per minute was considered good. The hydrogeologists hit three good sources; the dowser hit six. Clearly, the dowser won the contest. This test does not prove anything about dowsing, however. Nevertheless, I think Herr Schröter should knock on James Randi's door and be allowed to prove his paranormal powers under controlled conditions. If he is as good as he and Betz say he is, he should walk away a very rich man.
Betz has written a very long report, which is little more than a testimonial to the paranormal dowsing powers of Herr Schröter and a reiteration of the claims made for the barn study. He would have done better to have set up a controlled, double-blind experiment with the dowser, one which does not allow the dowser himself to determine the conditions of the experiment and one which did not have as many uncontrollable variables as those rampant in the ten-year project.

**صباحو** · 2016-03-28, 11:03 AM

dowsing for drugs and bombs

A modern twist to the ancient art of dowsing has been added by several entrepreneurs who have added a plastic handle to the dowsing rod and either fake or pointless electronic circuitry. These devices are not marketed as dowsing rods, but as machines capable of detecting drugs, bombs, or a variety of other things.

The Quadro QRS 250G "Detector" (the Quadro Tracker) is a plastic box with an antenna which was sold by Quadro Corp of Harleyville, South Carolina, as a detector of just about anything: drugs, weapons, golf balls, even lost coon dogs. The device sold for about $1,000 each, although some schools and government agencies spent as much as $8,000 on each worthless unit.

DielectroKinetic Laboratories (DKL) claims its LifeGuard "human presence detector" uses a very sophisticated technology that allows it to detect a human heartbeat through concrete or steel. Priced at between $6,000 and $14,000 each, the DKL LifeGuard is marketed to government agencies as a high-tech tool that can "locate survivors in the critical first minutes of an emergency."

The Treasure King System-2000 was a dowsing rod marketed to treasure hunters as "an operator body response long range locating instrument." If the user didn't find any treasure, it was said to be due to the user not being "conductive."

The ADE 651 is being used by Iraq's security forces despite warnings from the U.S. government that the devices are useless. Iraqi officials bought 800 of the devices from a company called ATSC (UK) Ltd. for $32 million in 2008, and an unspecified larger quantity for $53 million. They paid up to $60,000 apiece for the handheld wands. The Baghdad Operations Command purchased an additional 100 detection devices.

The British company Global Technical Ltd. has sold a dowsing rod it calls the GT 200 to both the Mexican military and police and to the Thai army.

The Mexicans think the rod can detect drugs. The Thais think it can detect bombs.
News reports in Thailand have reported the deaths of 3 police officers and one civilian due to the failure of the GT-200 Detection Device not finding hidden explosives.

Although the GT 200 is nothing more than a divining rod, Mexican defense officials praise the devices as a critical part of their efforts to combat drug traffickers. In November, 2009, at a checkpoint on the highway leading from Mexico City to Monterrey, the device pointed at a Volkswagen containing a man, a woman, and a child. Soldiers surrounded the vehicle and a search was conducted for illegal drugs. But all they found was a bottle of Tylenol — evidence, the soldier operating the device said, of how sensitive the GT 200 was.*

Even if you do not understand Thai, you will understand the message of this video:

Other dowsing rods sold as bomb detectors include the Sniffex, Scandec, MOLE, Alpha 6, ADE 100, PSD-22, HEDD1, and H3Tec

Before purchasing a bomb or drug detection device, it might be wise to first read Guide for the Selection of Commercial Explosives Detection Systems for Law Enforcement Applications from the Department of Justice.
See also divination, feng shui, geomancy, ideomotor effect, ley lines, magical thinking, post hoc fallacy, Quadro QRS 250G "Detector", self-deception, and Dowsing for Dollars by Robert T. Carroll.

further reading

reader comments

books and articles

Carpenter, William B. "On the influence of suggestion in modifying and directing muscular movement, independently of volition." Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain. 1852;1:147-153.

Christopher, Milbourne. ESP, Seers & Psychics (Thomas Y. Crowell Co. 1970).

Enright, J. T. "Dowsers Lost in a Barn." Naturwissenschaften, 83(6):275-277, 6/1996.

Enright, J. T. "Water Dowsing: the Scheunen Experiments," Naturwissenschaften, 82(8):360-369, 8/1995.

Feder, Kenneth L. Frauds, Mysteries and Myths, 3rd ed. (Mountain View, California: Mayfield Publishing Co., 1998).

Gardner, Martin. Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1957).

Hyman, Ray.. "Dowsing," in The Encyclopedia of the Paranormal edited by Gordon Stein (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1996) pp. 222-233.

Randi, James. An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural (N.Y.: St. Martin's Press, 1995).

Randi, James. Flim-Flam! (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books,1982).

Vogt, Evon and Ray Hyman. Water Witching U.S.A. 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).

Zusne, Leonard and Warren Jones. Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Magical Thinking 2nd edition. (Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. 1989).

websites

Dowsing for machine guns "One of the main tactical problems in jungle warfare had proved to be the extreme difficulty of accurately locating the enemy’s automatic weapons in dense cover, even when they came into action – as they often did – at little more than point blank range. A temporary officer in the RAF, who in happier times had been an enthusiastic water-diviner, claimed to be able to solve this problem. The gift of dowsing, he asserted, was more widely distributed among the human race than most people realized, and it was particularly common among Indians, who formed at that time the bulk of the forces under British command confronting the Japanese."

What's the harm? The ADE-651 hoax

Testing Dowsing The Failure of the Munich Experiments by J. T. Enright, Skeptical Inquirer, Jan/Feb 1999

Eric Kreig's Dowsing page

The American Society of Dowsers

Mass Media Funk 3

news

California farmers hire dowsers to find water

"With California in the grips of drought, farmers throughout the state are using a ... foolhardy tool for locating underground water....'There's no scientific basis to dowsing. If you want to go to a palm reader or a mentalist, then you're the same person who's going to go out and hire a dowser,' said Tom Ballard, a hydrogeologist...."

Apparently, farmers use this foolhardy method even when there isn't a drought

**صباحو** · 2016-03-28, 11:18 AM

The Pseudoscience of Water Witching

The Pseudoscience of Water Witching

A forked twig is the most common form of a dowsing, or divining, rod.

Dowsing is an unexplained process in which people use a forked twig or wire to find missing and hidden objects. Dowsing, also known as divining and doodlebugging, is often used to search for water or missing jewelry, but it is also often employed in other applications including ghost hunting, crop circles and fortunetelling.
The dowsing that most people are familiar with is water dowsing, or water witching or rhabdomancy, in which a person holds a Y-shaped branch (or two L-shaped wire rods) and walks around until they feel a pull on the branch, or the wire rods cross, at which point water is allegedly below. Sometimes a pendulum is used held over a map until it swings (or stops swinging) over a spot where the desired object may be found. Dowsing is said to find anything and everything, including missing persons, buried pipes, oil deposits and even archaeological ruins.

They got it wrong

Part of the reason for dowsing's longevity is its versatility in the New Age and paranormal worlds. According to many books and dowsing experts, the practice has a robust history and its success has been known for centuries. For example in the book "Divining the Future: Prognostication From Astrology to Zoomancy," Eva Shaw writes, "In 1556, 'De Re Metallica,' a book on metallurgy and mining written by George [sic] Agricola, discussed dowsing as an acceptable method of locating rich mineral sources." This reference to 'De Re Metallica' is widely cited among dowsers as proof of its validity, though there are two problems.

The first is that the argument is a transparent example of a logical fallacy called the "appeal to tradition" ("it must work because people have done it for centuries"); just because a practice has endured for hundreds of years does not mean it is valid. For nearly 2,000 years, for example, physicians practiced bloodletting, believing that balancing non-existent bodily humors would restore health to sick patients.

Sometimes dowsing involves holding a pendulum over a map.

Furthermore, it seems that the dowsing advocates didn't actually read the book because it says exactly the opposite of what they claim: Instead of endorsing dowsing, Agricola states that those seeking minerals "should not make use of an enchanted twig, because if he is prudent and skilled in the natural signs, he understands that a forked stick is of no use to him."
If dowsing could be proven to work, what could the mechanism be? How could a twig or two metal wires know what the dowser is looking for (water, money, minerals, a lost item, etc.), much less where it could be found? The proposed mechanisms are as varied as the dowsers themselves. Some sources claim that strong psychic energy is radiated by the object and detected by the dowser; others believe that ghosts, spirits or mysterious Earth
energies direct the dowser to their targets.

Dowsing: No better than chance

Skeptic James Randi in his "Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural," notes that dowsers often cannot agree on even the basics of their profession: "Some instructions tell learners never to try dowsing with rubber footwear, while others insist that it helps immeasurably. Some practitioners say that when divining rods cross, that specifically indicates water; others say that water makes the rods diverge to 180 degrees."
Though some people swear by dowsing's effectiveness, dowsers have been subjected to many tests over the years and have performed no better than chance under controlled conditions. It's not surprising that water can often be found with dowsing rods, since if you dig deep enough you'll find water just about anywhere. If missing objects (and even missing people) could be reliably and accurately located using dowsing techniques, it would be a great benefit: If you lose your keys or cell phone, you should be able to just pull out your pendulum and find it; if a person goes missing or is abducted, police should be able to locate them with dowsing rods.
Science differs from the New Age and paranormal belief in that it progresses, correcting and building on itself. Technology and medicine are continually advancing and refining. Designs and techniques are improved or abandoned depending on how well they work. By contrast, dowsers have not gotten any more accurate over centuries and millennia of practice.
Benjamin Radford is deputy editor of Skeptical Inquirer science magazine and author of six books including Scientific Paranormal Investigation: How to Solve Unexplained Mysteries. His Web site is .

**صباحو** · 2016-03-28, 11:25 AM

Why dowsing makes perfect sense

Why dowsing makes perfect sense

Last week, I went dowsing. Also known as divining, this is the ancient practice of holding twigs or metal rods that are supposed to move in response to hidden objects. It is often used to look for water, and farmers in California have been known to ask dowsers to find ways to irrigate their land.
Yet despite many anecdotal reports of success, dowsing has never been shown to work in controlled scientific tests. That’s not to say the dowsing rods don’t move. They do.
The scientific explanation for what happens when people dowse is that “ideomotor movements” – muscle movements caused by subconscious mental activity – make anything held in the hands move. It looks and feels as if the movements are involuntary. The same phenomenon has been shown to lie behind movements of objects on a Ouija board.
Meet the dowser

I knew all this when I went to meet John Baker, who is supervising a dowsing workshop at Sissinghurst castle in Kent, UK, tomorrow. What I didn’t realise is just how hard it is to believe the science.
Advertisement .
Baker specialises in dowsing for hidden archaeological structures. By the time I had finished my couple of hours with him, my scepticism about dowsing was getting shaky.
When I arrived, Baker was standing in front of an array of blue flags he had planted in a grassy area in the castle grounds. The flags marked out something his rods had revealed&colon; the outline of a long-forgotten building. Baker held his L-shaped dowsing rods like a pair of six-shooters and walked back and forth across the lines. As he “entered” the building, the rods swung across his body. When he exited, they uncrossed.
At this point, I was neither impressed nor surprised. He could see the line of flags, and he knew what he expected to happen. It would only take a small unconscious movement of his hands to make the rods cross, I thought. What would be impressive and surprising is if the rods crossed when I tried it.
So I had a few goes. Nothing happened. Baker looked untroubled, but I had begun to feel that I was wasting my time.
Just relax

Baker suggested I try to relax, shake out my shoulders, and maybe visualise something to do with buildings, since that was what I was dowsing for. I did – and it worked.
First the rods started to feel “jumpy” in my hands. Though they didn’t cross as I walked forward, they felt as if they might want to. So I tried it again. Eventually, they crossed every time I “entered” the building. They even uncrossed at the other side.
I have to confess, however much I might be able to rationalise what was happening, my newfound ability freaked me out a little.
So what happened? Baker’s explanation is that by relaxing, and suppressing all my rationalisations, I allowed my brain to tune into a kind of “energy” associated with the buried structure. I think there’s a simpler explanation.
Subtle illusion

I was frustrated when nothing happened, and stimulated (and amused) when something did. It seems that a part of me wanted it to work. In other words, the atmosphere was the perfect set-up for the ideomotor effect to kick in and move the rods.
Scientifically minded sceptics often express deep dismay at the credulousness of people who believe in dowsing, extrasensory perception and other “inexplicable” phenomena. They should not be so harsh. The illusions that make them seem plausible are astonishingly subtle and powerful.
It is only human to attribute such observations to something beyond the normal senses. Even if science is your thing, a brief immersion in the world of the “unexplained” can be enough to inject a little doubt.
A final confession&colon; I am still slightly disappointed that the scientific explanation stands up so well. I had a great time with Baker at Sissinghurst, and I’m sure tomorrow’s apprentice dowsers will too.
We take a perverse pleasure in things that confound our senses, which is why conjuring tricks are delightful and science can seem a killjoy. The physicist Richard Feynman once said that science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. What he didn’t say was just how much fun fooling yourself can be.
Michael Brooks is the author of 13 Things That Don’t Make Sense (Profile/Doubleday

إعـــــــلان

dowsing (a.k.a.) water witching, radiesthesia

dowsing (a.k.a.) water witching, radiesthesia

تعليق

تعليق

تعليق

تعليق

تعليق

تعليق