Here\u2019s a piece from the BSD journal written by the\nlate Dan Wilson, a very experienced dowser and engineer, who reflected much on\nthe \u201cmechanics\u201d of dowsing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe failure of dowsing under test\u201d :<\/p>\n\n\n\n
http:\/\/www.dowsing-research.net\/blog_extracts\/BSDP_No280_2003_p3.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Here he reflects on why dowsers seem to perform so badly in \u201cscientific\u201d trials, in contrast to their performance when dowsing in whatever \u201carea\u201d they specialise in. When one reads of the experiences of dowsers, their successes can be rather striking, but one does not get this same perception from the published studies on dowsing, see:<\/p>\n\n\n\n http:\/\/www.dowsing-research.net\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Wilson suggests that dowsers often put their failure\ndown to the hostility of the investigator, an example of whom he gives as James\nRandi. Randi was offering a financial prize for those who could demonstrated any\ntype of psychic ability. Wilson refers to Randi\u2019s test of dowsers, which was broadcast\non British TV in 1992. The footage of this survives and may currently be found\non YouTube:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDowsing (1991-08-07) – James Randi – Psychic Investigator\u201d:<\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=le1qisF3j-o<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n The two dowsers tested were successful overall in\nperforming the set tasks. They were members of the BSD and both were very\ngifted dowsers. Wilson attributes their success to them applying a form of\npsychic \u201cprotection\u201d (see below) from Randi\u2019s detrimental and sceptical intent.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n In his article, Wilson concentrates on those\npracticing complimentary medicine, a field he was very familiar with. He\nreflects on why studies performed by the dowsing practitioners themselves also may\nfail to show very little or no effect. He refers to a 2002 study by \u201cFACT\u201d, (it\nis not clear what organisation this acronym represents). In this study run by a\nhomeopathic institution, the participants, several homeopaths, failed to perform\na given dowsing task. See the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cCan homeopaths detect homeopathic medicines by dowsing? A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial\u201d, <\/p>\n\n\n\n http:\/\/www.dowsing-research.net\/dowsing\/articles\/McCarney%20Can%20homeopaths%20detect%20homeopathic%20medicines%20by%20dowsing.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n He suggests that the principle cause of failure is because\ndowsing is a mental operation, and the dowser’s intention is different when\nthey are under test, from when they are engaged in their normal work, in which\nthey seek results in a confident and focussed manner. In this latter case the\ndowser accepts without question, that dowsing will produce the required\nresults. This contrasts with dowsing under test, where the purpose is to\ndemonstrate that dowsing works. Mentally the dowsers do not “own” the\ntest, (they give up ownership to the investigator instead). And as he points\nout, the results of any trial can then be subject to the expectations of the\ninvestigator (the psi-mediated “experimenter effect” in parapsychology),\nor even the expectations of any larger group. Interestingly then, Wilson seems\nto imply that it is the ability to take ownership of the dowsing task, that\nconfers the \u201cprotection\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another reason for failure, and one that most dowsers\nmight ascribe to, is the hostility of the investigator. This parallels findings\nin parapsychology, in which investigators with a belief in psi do better than\nthose who hold no such beliefs. Again, this is a kind of psi-mediated\nexperimenter effect. Perhaps closely associated with this, is what you might\nterm \u201cperformance anxiety\u201d, the stress of being evaluated while dowsing, and of\nnot getting it right. <\/p>\n\n\n\n He identifies several other issues, and one of these is\nsomething that many dowsers have agreed with in their writings, the lack of a \u201cneed\nto know\u201d can impair a dowser\u2019s performance. <\/p>\n\n\n\n He concludes with the suggestion that rather than formally\ntesting dowsers with \u201cartificial\u201d tasks, it would be better to conduct \u201cfield\nstudies\u201d, looking at the results dowsers obtain over time in their chosen field\nof expertise. For example, the work published by Betz:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cUnconventional Water Detection: Field Test of the Dowsing Technique in Dry Zones: Parts 1 and 2\u201d :<\/p>\n\n\n\n Journal of Scientific Exploration, 9, 1, 1-43 (1995)<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n And<\/p>\n\n\n\n