|
DOWSING: A REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH ABSTRACT
Dowsing is a term commonly used to denote the practice of locatingunderground water with a forked stick; however, in practice its use isreally not so restricted. Dowsing is also used to determine answers toother questions such as the sex of an unborn child, and the location ofpipes, or for foretelling the future. Numerous exotic instruments havebeen used by dowsers including scissors, pliers, crowbars, and even Germansausages. Probably the three most common instruments are the forked stickor Y-rod, the pendulum, and the L-rod, usually made of a piece of wireor rod bent in the shape of the letter ‘L’ The terms water witching, rhabdomancy,radiesthesia, and water divining have also been used as synonyms for dowsing.
In this paper we shall consider downing to be a problem-solvingtechnique which apparently utilizes a motor automatism in conjunction witha mechanical instrument to obtain information otherwise unknown to thedowser. Classically, dowsing has been used to solve location problems withthe dowser standing or walking over the area of interest. Some dowsersdo not use instruments but experience bodily sensations (such as a feelingof heat in the palm of the hand, or a sharp pain in the back). A few examplesof this will be considered. Animals also seem to have abilities to findhidden objects (e.g. Rhine, 1971), but this topic will not be discussedhere. The historical origin of dowsing is unknown. Numerous referencesto water finders and similar terms have led some to think that it is thousandsof years old. The first published description of the dowsing rodis probably Georgius Agricola’sDe re Metallica dated 1556 (translatedin 1912 by the then future president of the United States Herbert Hoover).From an extensive survey of the literature, Barrett and Besterman (1926/1968)found the first unmistakable reference to the dowsing rod was in 1430;although many earlier works have been construed as referring to dowsing.Two major works on the history of dowsing are by Barrett and Besterman(1926/1968) and by Bird (1979). The dowsing rod has always been steeped in controversy. Martin Lutherthought it the work of the devil. On the other hand, many medieval dowsers 343
|
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research [Vol. 51, No. 792
baptised their rods along with a child so that they might address therods by a Christian name. Today the U.S. Geological Survey asserts thatdowsing does not deserve further study (Water Dowsing, 1977); itclaims to have reviewed scientifically controlled tests; but gives no indicationof what these tests were. Ellis (1917) wrote the only comprehensive reporton water dowsing to be published by this body. Although a 28 page bibliographywas included, no data were presented to evaluate dowsers’ claims; it waslargely a historical review. In contrast, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineershas hired dowsers, and the Corps’ chief has said with qualifications thathe would hire a dowser under some circumstances (Dowsing Can’t Work . .. And Bumblebees, of Course, Can’t Fly, 1968).The New York Timesreported that the U.S. Marine Corps used dowsing in Vietnam (Baldwin, 1967). Various sources describe anecdotal cases (e.g. Barrett,1900; Besterman, 1938; Bird, 1975, 1977, 1979; Dykshoorn, 1974; Haines,1926; Katz and Paulson, 1948, 1949; McMahan, 1947; Pease, 1884; and Wyman,1977). InWater Witching U.S.A., Vogt and Hyman (1959) argue atsome length that anecdotal evidence does not constitute rigorous scientificproof of the effectiveness of dowsing. Today two major controversies remain unresolved concerningdowsing (apart from whether it works). The one most discussed is how thedowser obtained the information he is seeking. The second question concernsthe cause of the rod’s movement; very little work has been done on this.Some work however has been devoted to studying the physiological correlatesof dowsing reactions. Several explanations have been put forward as to how thedowser gets results. Debunkers claim that dowsers are little more thangood practical geologists (e.g. Riddick, 1951, 1952). Rawcliffe (1952/1959)suggests that a dowser may occasionally exercise the maximum powers ofhuman observation (e.g. he may note the colour of soil and vegetation,slight differences in growth of plants such as direction of root structure,etc.), and that he processes all this information and moves the dowsinginstrument accordingly; at the unconscious level. This is a ‘normal inference’explanation. A second explanation is that dowsers react to some known typeof radiation (e.g. electro-magnetic) in a little understood way—this isoften called the physical theory. A third explanation is that the dowseruses some form of ESP. This has been called the psychical explanation;although to some extent this may be said to explain the unknown by theunknown. Normal inference explanations may account for some of theanecdotal cases, but they are of little intrinsic interest. It is worthnoting that experiments have demonstrated the helpful effect of dowsingin the presence of a person who knows where the hidden object is (e.g.Stratton, 1921; Foster, 1923). The dowser in fact may be able to ‘read’subtle behaviour cues as to location. Such possibilities should of coursebe eliminated in experimental work. This paper examines the scientific literature on dowsingin the light of these controversies. A brief review of the late nineteenthand early twentieth century studies gives some historical background. Experimentalwork assuming a biophysical basis for dowsing is considered; a sectionhas also been included on experimental work concerning the physiologicalconcomitants of dowsing. The parapsychological investigations are reviewedwith special attention to adequacy of experimental controls. The controversyregarding the movement of the rod is
344
|
October 1982 Dowsing
discussed. Although most authorities believe that it is due to unconsciousmuscular action, some evidence indicates that PK may sometimes be involved.The scant information available from the Soviet bloc countries is reviewed;and there is a section on sociological studies of ‘water witching’. EARLY RESEARCH From the earliest days of the Society for Psychical Research,and perhaps before, there was a controversy as to whether dowsing was aphysical or psychical phenomenon. Sir William F. Barrett, professor ofphysics, at the Royal College of Science in Dublin and a principle founderof the SPR, led research on the phenomenon and published two lengthy articlesin the Society’sProceedings (Barrett, 1897-98, 1900-01). He favouredthe psychical explanation; although he also conducted experiments whichindicated that some individuals were sensitive to magnetic fields (Barrett,1884). Continental investigators largely supported the physical hypothesis.Carl von Klinckowstroem, a German research scientist, argued that dowsingcould be explained in purely physical terms although the actual physicalstimulus (or stimuli) has yet to be defined (Klinckowstroem, 1912, 1925,1959; Besterman, France, and Klinckowstroem, 1931). Charles Richet, Nobelprize winner and former President of the SPR, suggested that dowsers respondto some type of radiation emanating from various materials (the prevailingview of French dowsers of his day, e.g. Mager, 1931), but claimed thatit resembled cryptaesthesia, his term for ESP (Richet, 1923). One of the experiments conducted by Barrett to test thephysical theory was to determine if dowsers could detect the presence ofradium salts (Barrett, 1910). Radium salts were placed in a lead case behindthe dowsers with the lid sometimes open and sometimes closed. The dowsersinvolved registered reactions (sometimes quite violent ones) with the lidboth open and closed. It was concluded that radioactivity was not the dowsers’source of information. It is not clear whether Barrett’s rather stronglystated conclusions were completely warranted. No indication was given whetheror not the dowsers had more hits than chance would predict. The experimentwas apparently not conducted double blind; thus misleading sensory cuescould have biassed the results. Barrett also conducted a number of experimentswhich supported the psychical theory. Here is a description of one:
345
|
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research [Vol. 51, No. 792
At the end of five trials, Barrett concluded that the odds against chanceoccurrence were 80,000,000 to 1. Although these results are impressiveand some precautions were taken, not all normal influences were ruled out.There is no indication that the chair selection process was random. Thehiding of the coin may have slightly disturbed the original positions ofthe chairs thus giving a clue. Overall, the methodology of Barrett’s experiments(at the same level as other investigators of his time) is inadequate bytoday’s standards. The work done by investigators over 50 years ago can beconsidered only exploratory. The procedures and results are difficult toevaluate because often few details are given and afford no firm basis forconclusions. Nevertheless the anecdotal material collected and the experimentalresults obtained have suggested further areas of investigation. BIOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS To the orthodox scientific community, probably the mostacceptable method of studying dowsing is through biophysics. This approachassumes that some humans may be able to detect low levels of known typesof radiation in a little understood manner. The most widely cited investigatorsusing this approach who have published in English include Maby and Franklin,Tromp, Rocard, Harvalik, and Chadwick and Jensen. A book published in 1939,The Physics of theDivining Rod (currently available from University Microfilms), describedthe experimental investigations of J. C. Maby and T. B. Franklin, who concludedthat ordinary dowsing sprang from a special physiological faculty whichcould be explained along classical scientific lines (Maby, 1941). Althoughthis work is often cited, the published reviews have frequently been unfavourable.The reviewers for the Society’s Journal and forNature assert thatthe experiments are not well enough described to evaluate (C. C. L. Gregory,1940, 1941; Ellison, 1969; andThe Physics of the Divining Rod,1940). One of the most extensive works describing experimentalresearch on dowsing from a biophysical viewpoint was written by Dr. SolcoW. Tromp. Tromp, a Dutch professor of geology, has produced numerous articleson geology and two books on medical subjects and served as the directorof the Bioclimatological Centre in Leiden. His most widely cited book inpsychical research is probablyPsychical Physics (reviewed by Robertson,1950; R. Wilson, 1951). Much of this reviews literature concerning theeffects of electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic radiation on biologicalorganisms. It also surveys the literature on geophysical fields and meteorologicalfields such as radioactivity and air ions, and—more briefly—some testsconducted in both laboratory and field conditions to determine levels ofsensitivity in dowsers, and the physiological changes they experiencedduring dowsing. The volume covers many areas; the bibliography cites 1496items the majority not in English. Tromp (1955, 1968, 1972) has also publishedbrief articles dealing with additional research findings and summarizingsome of the material in his book. Tromp conducted tests to determine dowsers’ sensitivityto magnetic fields in the laboratory. A tangent galvanometer with a woodenring of 1.0 meter diameter and one coil of wire was used to create a magneticfield. The galvanometer was equipped with a reportedly noiseless switchand noiseless 346 |
October 1982] Dowsing
swivel. For many of the tests, dowsers used a U-shaped rod. Tromp foundthat dowsers could detect changes in the strength of an electromagneticfield (for instance, by walking through an area with a varying field strength,by switching current on or off, or by changing the direction of the field)but could not detect the field strength itself. His experiments showedthat sensitive dowsers could detect gradients of less than 0.1 gauss permeter (the strength of the earth’s field is roughly 0.5 gauss, a child’smagnet is of the order of 1,000 gauss). After 20 trials the dowsers becamefatigued and could not respond accurately, but for the first twenty trials,those he found sensitive responded correctly 80 per cent of the time. Thetests with the tangent galvanometer were conducted with the dowsers blindfoldedand with cotton-wool placed in their ears. The person recording the responseswas not aware the current was on or off; however, the experimenter controllingthe switch was in the same room as the dowser. Tromp noted that some dowserstook up to eleven seconds to respond to the change in the electromagneticfield; but did not mention how the length of each trials was establishedor the actual number of subjects, trials, or successes. In other tests conducted with the artificial magnetic fields,dowsers used pendulums. Tromp found that persons not sensitive to the artificialfields when using the loop shaped rod, were sensitive when using the pendulum;and also that, in contrast to findings with the rod, persons using a pendulumcould detect differences in field strength. The numbers of subjects, trials,and successes were again omitted. Tromp reported moreover that dowsers could detect electrostaticfields. The experiments are described briefly and the level of experimentalcontrol undertaken is not clear. Tromp also tested dowsers under field conditions.Dowsers were led along a path in a house, and locations where dowsing reactionsoccurred were noted. For most of the experiments, dowsers used pendulumsas dowsing instruments because Tromp found that they produced the quickestreactions. A magnetic survey was made afterward along the same path. Definitecorrelations were found between the ‘dowsing zones’ and the magnetic disturbances.Dowsers were also tested out of doors to determine if they could locatesubsurface discontinuities which could not be predicted by even very experiencedgeologists or botanists. They traversed a pre-assigned path and their reactionswere recorded. A soil resistivity survey was made after the dowsing tests(resistivity surveys indicate underground discontinuities). In nearly allthe surveys statistically significant correlations were reported betweenlow soil resistivity and dowsing reactions. It was not clear whether thesoil resistivity survey was conducted by a person blind to the dowsers’responses. Although Tromp found strong correlations between changesin magnetic field strength and dowsing zones, he did not conclude thatthere was a causal relationship between the two where field conditionswere concerned. He suggested that dowsers might be sensitive to very lowlevel infra-red radiation, since they could detect changes in soil resistivityalthough the accompanying magnetic field fluctuations were very small (producinggradients far smaller than those detected by dowsers in his laboratory).Unfortunately he did not present any experimental data to support thishypothesis. Tromp ruled out a psychic explanation since his dowsers couldnot predict 347 |
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research [Vol. 51, No. 792
zones of disturbance (e.g. low soil resistivity) at a distance. Mapdowsing tests he conducted with people claiming such ability were unsuccessful(Tromp, 1968). As no details were given, an evaluation of the methods andresults is not possible. Yves Rocard, professor of physics at theEcole Normalein Paris, also studied the relation betweeen dowsing and electromagneticradiation. Much of his research on dowsing is discussed in his bookLeSignal du Sourcier (reviewed by Montgomery, 1964; Parsons, 1963; andThouless, 1964). Only two very brief summaries seem to have appeared inEnglish (Rocard in Barnothy, 1964; L’Huillier, 1968). In his experimentsRocard set up a wooden frame (50 cm by 100 cm) wrapped with 100 turns offine wire. The frame was placed in a location with reportedly no straymagnetic gradients. The subjects were given a brief training period onhow to hold the Y-rod and allowed to practise when they knew the currentwas on or off. Rocard reports that during the testing, every precautionwas taken to prevent the dowser from knowing whether the experimenter turnedthe current on or off but gave few details. He concluded that a dowsercould detect a changing artificial magnetic field of the order of 0.3 to0.5 mO/m (approximately equivalent to 0.0003 to 0.0005 gauss per metrein air) at the level of the subject’s chest if the dowser were walkingat a normal speed. Rocard claimed that a good dowser is never wrong whenattempting to detect this signal as long as he is not overworked. He notedthat smaller gradients could be detected if the dowser were walking fasteror travelling in a vehicle as long as the change was at least 0.3 to 0.5mO/sec (0.0003 to 0.0005 gauss per second). It was also found that thereaction of the dowser was more pronounced if two coils of wire were usedin series. This gave the dowser a longer exposure to the field. Rocardnoted that below 0.1 mO/sec (0.0001 gauss per second) detection was inaccurate.It was also found that gradients in excess of some uncertain amount produced‘saturation’; presumably this means that the dowsers were not sensitiveto gradients above this level. Rocard also noted that if magnets were attachedto the forearms of the dowsers, no reaction was obtained, but if a similarnon-magnetic object were used, the dowsers were still able to respond.Presumably no indication was given to the dowsers as to which were andwere not magnetic. It was also observed that dowsers’ responses were muchless clear with a pendulum than with a rod (although this contrasts withTromp’s comments, it should be noted that Rocard’s subjects used a typeof rod unlike those used by Tromp’s subjects). No indication is given asto the number of subjects Rocard tested; thus it is difficult to know whetherthe indicated range applies to most or only a few dowsers. Rocard noted that water filtering through porousmedia in permeable layers next to clay layers might be expected to producea magnetic gradient on the order of 0.1 mOe/m (0.0001 gauss per metre). One of the most prolific American investigators of dowsingis Dr. Zaboj V. Harvalik, a retired professor of physics formerly at theUniversity of Arkansas and a former adviser to U.S. Army’s Advanced ConceptsMaterials Agency. He is now a vice-president of The American Society ofDowsers (ASD). Nearly all his work has been published inThe AmericanDowser, the quarterly publication of ASD (and has appeared in nearlyevery issue since 1970). The present writer does not know whether independentinvestigators have tried to replicate it. Much of this work was done withelectromagnetic fields. He, too, has found 348
|
October 1982] Dowsing
that dowsers are sensitive to changes in magnetic field strength thoughnot to absolute magnitude, but believes them to be much more sensitivethan other investigators have indicated and that a fairly sensitive dowsercan respond to a change of 1 10-6gauss per second (Harvalik, 1970). Later in this report he claimed thatan average dowser could detect a change of 3 10-7 gauss, a skilled dowser 3 10-8 gauss, and an exceptional dowser 7 10-9gauss (the actual gradient involved is not completely clear) and that hetested one subject, Mr. De Boer, who could detect changes of 2 10-10 gauss. He mentioned that he found the L-rods gave betterresults than the forked stick and were easier and more sensitive for inexperienceddowsers. Only final results are presented in many of his reports, and methodsof statistical evaluation are not discussed. It is unknown whether doubleblind conditions were strictly observed and whether all normal sensorycues were eliminated. One of his reports (Harvalik, 1978) is notable forthe amount of detail it contains; it is discussed further in the PhysiologicalStudies section of this paper. Harvalik also found that dowsers could detect and discerndifferent radio frequencies and radioactive substances even with considerableshielding (Harvalik, 1973a; Harvalik and De Boer, 1976). As with many ofhis experiments, the level of control is uncertain, and replication byothers is needed before conclusions can be drawn. Duane Chadwick and Larry Jensen, electrical engineers fromUtah State University, produced one of the most detailed reports of a preliminaryinvestigation concerning magnetic fields and dowsing. In a series of experiments(Chadwick and Jensen, 1971), a number of subjects, most without previousdowsing experience, separately walked along several pre-assigned pathswith dowsing rods (mainly L-rods). They were given a set of wooden blocksand asked to place a block at each location where they obtained a dowsingreaction. After the dowsers had traversed the path, a magnetic survey wascarried out. A statistical analysis was made to determine whetherthere was any patterning of the dowsers’ responses. Chadwick and Jensenfound that on certain portions of the path, dowsers were much more likelyto experience dowsing reactions. The probabilities of this patterning (morereactions in some areas than others) occurring by chance ranged from p= 0.06 to p < 0.0005. If this were a parapsychological experiment, onemight conclude that a very strong stacking effect was observed. Chadwick and Jensen gave a graphical representation ofthe relation between the dowsers’ responses and the magnetic field butdid not present a full statistical evaluation of these data; so it is notclear whether the correlation would be statistically significant (thoughit well may be). In areas with a gradient of 0.5 gamma per foot (0.000016gauss per metre), more reactions were obtained than when the gradient wasless. In some experiments an iron bar was buried along the testpath and there was reportedly no visual indication of its presence. Theiron bar produced a distinct magnetic anomaly. From the graphical datapresented it seems unlikely that the number of dowsing reactions near thebar was due to chance. In another experiment the subjects were given 30 woodenblocks and were asked to drop them wherever they felt like it while onan assigned path. The patterning of responses among the subjects was moreconsistent than would be
349
|
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research [Vol. 51, No. 792 expected by chance at the 10 per cent level. When compared with themagnetic survey, on the average there were as many reactions in areas withthe gradient greater than 0.5 gamma per foot (0.000016 gauss per metre)as in cases with a smaller gradient. It appears that this method whichrequires some conscious involvement to achieve a dowsing response was noteffective. The apparently unconscious movement of the dowsing rods seemsto make for greater accuracy. Chadwick and Jensen did present calculations to show thatthe expected change in the magnetic field due to an aquifer (an undergroundformation containing water) could be as high as 0.0043 gauss. From previousdata it seems that a dowser might be able to detect this. However, Chadwickand Jensen did not conclude that dowsing was necessarily an efficaciousmethod of locating underground water. They noted that no wells had beendug in their study, that the type of information actually used by the dowserswas undefined, and that the patterning of the dowsers’ responses was notnecessarily due to magnetic anomalies. Although they did not conclude thatdowsers were sensitive to magnetic anomalies, they did conclude that furtherresearch was warranted and recommended that extraterrestial radiation bemonitored during testing, or that tests be conducted in an environmentshielded from all extraneous magnetic influences. They also noted thatit is not clear which (if any) magnetic field the dowser might be detecting(e.g. field at ground level, at head level, gradients in vertical or horizontalplane, etc.). W. H. Jack, a parapsychology instructor at Franklin PierceCollege in New Hampshire, experimented to determine whether subjects coulduse dowsing to detect a current flowing through a wire (Jack, 1978). Thetwelve subjects, members of an experimental parapsychology class, usedL-rods to determine whether or not a current of 0.1 amp was flowing throughan extension cord (no data were given as to the resulting magnetic fieldstrength or gradient). The subjects were asked to report whether the currentwas on or off. Of 240 trials, there were 141 hits (p < 0.01). Jack indicatedthat the subjects were in familiar surroundings, in good rapport, and involvedin the experimental design, but admitted that the study was not conducteddouble blind. The person recording whether power was on or off also recordedthe dowsers’ responses—allowing the possibility of biassed recording errors.From the report, one might be given the impression that the subjects wereusing psi to obtain the correct results; even if there were no recordingerrors or other sensory leakage, there could have been an effect due toelectro-magnetic radiation. The report does not show whether the intentwas to investigate a psi phenomenon or a biophysical one. Jack (1977) also conducted an experiment in which six ratherinexperienced dowsers (college students) attempted to locate a vein ofwater previously dowsed by several more experienced ones. Twenty-six two-metrelong intervals were marked with stakes along a road, and the subjects wereasked to use L-rods to determine the previously selected interval. A majorityvote was taken, and the group did pick the correct interval, p = 0.038.A definite effort was made to establish a realistic dowsing situation andpsi conducive environment. The subjects were told that the experimenterplanned to build a house and needed a well and were encouraged to visitthe site when the well was to be dug. A picnic was held after the dowsingtest. It appears that the test was not conducted double blind; the experimenterapparently knew the location of the pre-selected interval
350
|
October 1982] Dowsing
and was present during the test. It is also uncertain whetherthe dowsers were using psi, or reacting to some electromagnetic radiation,or some other stimulus. Overall, the result basically confirms the patterningof responses noted by Chadwick and Jensen. Several experimental failures to support the electromagnetichypothesis have been reported. Foulkes (1971) attempted to replicate Rocard’s work withartificial magnetic fields. Coils of wire similar to his were set up. Thedowser (who claimed such ability) was given a short series of learningtrials in which he knew whether the current was on or off. Three runs of25 trials were held with no indication given to the dowser whether thecurrent was on or off. Only chance results were obtained. Unfortunatelyonly one dowser was used in this study. No mention was made whether therewere possible magnetic anomalies in the area of the testing. Whitton and Cook (1978) also conducted two experimentsattempting to determine whether subjects could detect the presence of weakmagnetic fields. In the first, twenty-seven subjects, two believing themselvesto be dowsers, were asked to determine whether current was flowing througha coil similar to that of Rocard’s (here alternating current was used).Each was allowed a preliminary learning trial conducted without the useof dowsing instruments, although the subjects were allowed to move around.They simply stated verbally whether the current was on or off. Only chanceresults were obtained. In the second experiment, eleven subjects, noneof them professional dowsers, were asked to determine whether current wasflowing through the coil of wire when it was placed in a known horizontalposition beneath the floor of the room. In this case direct current wasused. The subjects were given L-rods to use. Again they gave verbal reports.Here also only chance results were obtained. No mention was made as towhether there were possible magnetic anomalies at the test site. Balanovski and Taylor (1978) claim to have testeddowsers’ sensitivities to magnetic fields. They found that those testedwere insensitive to fields of 100 gauss. Taylor (1980) reported that onedowser tested with 500 gauss was also not sensitive. No gradients wereindicated in the reports, and no details were given as to testing procedure.Taylor and Balanovski (1979b) also tested a number of persons, includingdowsers, for sensitivity to high-frequency low power level electromagneticfields. The subjects sat close to an antenna while the power was randomlyswitched on or off. Between 10 and 60 trials per subject were conductedbut they were apparently unable to tell whether the power was on or off.Taylor and Balanovski (1979a, c) conclude that dowsing is not possiblebecause the level of sensitivity required is far greater than that theyclaim for human capability. Much work has been done concerning the effects of electromagneticradiation on living organisms; Barnothy (1964), Presman (1970), Persinger(1974), and Dubrov (1978) have summarized the findings. Except for workon dowsing, very little has been done to determine the effects on humansof very slight changes in magnetic fields. Some work in biophysics indicatesthat at times a small field has a greater effect on a living organism thana stronger field (Prcsman, 1970). There have been anecdotal reports ofpersons receiving radio broadcasts from the fillings in teeth; presumablythe radiation involved is relatively low intensity. Wieske (1963) reportedtwo cases of amazing auditory sensitivity to electric
351
|
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research [Vol. 51, No. 792 fields. One woman could even hear telephone conversations by listeningto the wires! Because of the wide range of findings reported as to thesensitivity of dowsers it is difficult to draw conclusions. Although thereis positive evidence that humans do have some ability to detect weak electromagneticfields, the results of Whitton and Cook, and Balanovski and Taylor challengethe conclusions of other investigators. It is far too early to concludethat this sensitivity can be used to detect underground water. Further experiments appear justified and could have wideranging implications. Work could be done to determine human thresholdsof sensitivity to horizontal and vertical magnetic fields (ideally in ashielded environment to eliminate extraneous magnetic fields). The psychologicalstate of the subjects might usefully be varied; perhaps relaxation wouldfacilitate greater sensitivity. Any further work must use extremely tightcontrols to rule out alternative information sources. The results of suchexperiments might indicate unsuspected communication systems; if so, suchknowledge would have useful applications. PHYSIOLOGICAL STUDIES In contrast to the biophysical investigations just discussed,there is considerable agreement among studies of the physiology of dowsing.Various anecdotal reports indicate that some good dowsers experience profoundphysiological changes while dowsing. Barrett and Besterman (1926/1968)reported instances of dowsers becoming dizzy or sick while standing overunderground water. Bill Cox, a prominent American dowser, reported thatan extremely sensitive dowser he trained would vomit while standing overa good water well location. Tromp and Rocard have reported on Europeanwork, and Harvalik has described more recent American work. Tromp (1949) conducted a number of experimentsmeasuring the skin potential between wrists of dowsers. Tests were usedto monitor skin potential while dowsers were exposed to artificial magneticfields, while walking through ‘dowsing zones’ (a rather vague term; insome instances they were definitely associated with magnetic anomalies),and while walking next to human beings. An Einthoven string galvanometerwas used to record skin potential. The loop-shaped dowsing rod was placedin insulated grips, and a special circuit was established which includedpart of the dowsing rod (Tromp conducted several experiments to ensurethat the circuit did not change skin potential). In dowsers exposed to an artificial magnetic field froma tangent galvanometer, changes in skin potential were registered almostimmediately after the field was developed. The report does not show whetherthe dowsers knew whether or not the current was on. Tromp cited evidenceto support the argument that changes in the electrocardiograms recordedby the Einthoven string galvanometer during these experiments were notdue to psycho-galvanic reflexes (a psycho-galvanic reflex is a sudden decreasein skin resistance accompanying a mental reaction such as that caused bycalling a person’s name (frightening him, etc.). Tromp tested the monitoringequipment to ensure that the change was not caused by induction potentials.In other experiments, he had dowsers walk over dowsing zones while theirskin potential was being monitored. Very distinct changes were found whilethe dowsers were in the dowsing zones,
352
|
October 1982] Dowsingchanges which did not occur if the dowsers were outside a dowsing zoneand intentionally moved the dowsing rod. He also found that the same changesoccurred when the dowsers walked through the dowsing zone but did not carrythe rod and that persons not especially sensitive exhibited similar changesexcept the changes were slower and less pronounced. Tromp noted that persons sensitive to dowsing had muchlower skin resistance than those not sensitive, and claimed that non-sensitivepersons can be made sensitive for a short time by washing their hands.In other experiments, the skin potential was monitored while a dowser movedthe rod over the body of another human. Tromp found differences when therod was held over the head and when over the feet. There were differentchanges for men and women. Few details are given of these experiments;the results would be strengthened if influences such as psycho-galvanicaction could be convincingly ruled out. A number of American studies have been done with HenryGross, a dowser made famous by the works of historical novelist KennethRoberts (1951, 1953, 1957). Gallay (in Roberts, 1953) reported on a short study conductedwith Henry Gross by a group of electrical engineers familiar with Tromp’swork. They attempted to verify and extend it. For the first part of theexperiments, the skin potential was monitored while working indoors doing‘long range’ dowsing rather than walking back and forth over known undergroundwater. On some of the trials a noticeable change occurred; however, subsequenttrials did not obtain significant results. In the latter part of the experiments,the tests were conducted near a known vein of water. When Gross walkedover the vein of water, a change of 100 millivolts was noted, which returnedto approximately normal after he crossed it. For the nondowsers tested,changes of less than 10 millivolts were generally recorded. In a laterset of experiments, Gallay tested a Canadian dowser, Desrosiers. Desrosiersused no dowsing instrument but experienced his dowsing reactions as painfulsensations on the soles of his feet and in the small of his back. Changesin skin potential were from 100 to 200 millivolts when he walked over theknown water vein. The maximum change noted with a number of non-dowserswas 30 millivolts. The location of the water vein was apparently knownto the dowsers; again the results would be strengthened if psycho-galvanicaction could be ruled out. Berthold E. Schwarz, a psychiatrist, also investigatedthe physiological and psychoanalytical aspects of Henry Gross’s dowsing(Schwarz, 1962-63 and 1968). Electroencephalographic studies were madewhile Gross was dowsing for water veins near the laboratory; map downingfor water; and dowsing for objects hidden in the laboratory. Schwarz concludedthat there were no associated measurable changes on the EEG other thanincreased eye movement and muscle artefact. The report indicates that alltesting was done in the laboratory but none while Gross was crossing anunderground vein of water or other dowsing zone. Although these tests werenot designed to determine dowsing’s effectiveness, Schwarz did report somenotable successes for near distance dowsing, map dowsing, and dowsing forhidden, objects. These can only be considered anecdotal cases because nostatistical evaluation was presented and the tests did not always excludesensory cues. Schwarz also conducted experiments monitoring respiration,skin resistance,
353
|
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research [Vol. 51, No. 792 pulse pressure, and pulse rate. During the periods in which dowsingwas attempted the respiration became irregular, the skin resistance decreased,the pulse pressure increased and the pulse rate slightly increased. WhileGross was dowsing, the electrocardiograms showed an increase in heart rateof 23 per cent compared to a rest period. These experiments were conductedboth in the laboratory and when dowsing for water in the neighbourhood.Schwarz concluded that polygraphic studies suggested that dowsing is associatedwith a significant expenditure of energy and is a rather abrupt process.The same conclusion could have been reached by watching Gross while hedowsed. Rocard (in Barnothy, 1964) made several comments on thephysiology of dowsing. He noted that electrical resistance between palmsof the hands for a ‘good’ dowser is 1/3 to l/4 that of a ‘poor’ dowser.No details were given as to how this was determined. Rocard suggested thatnuclear magnetic resonance might explain a dowser’s sensitivity to magneticgradients. He argued that protons of the dowser’s body in the weaker portionof the field might move at a different rate than those in a stronger portion.This would cause beats detectable by the dowser. Apparently no experimentalwork was done to test this hypothesis. Harvalik reports two experiments attempting tolocate dowsing sensors in the body. In the first (Harvalik, 1973b), a dowserwalked over several dowsing zones (undefined) while a magnetic shield wasplaced over various portions of his body. Harvalik concluded that the dowsingsensors seemed to be located between the seventh and twelfth rib somewherein the body. It is not clear whether the experiment was conducted doubleblind and whether sensory cues were eliminated. In a well described secondexperiment, Harvalik (1978) reports a study with dowsers detecting low-powerhigh-frequency electromagnetic fields. Fourteen reputed dowsers participatedwith 694 trials (661 hits, 33 misses). The high-frequency generator wasrandomly switched on or off; the trials were conducted double blind. Piecesof aluminium sheet were placed on various portions of the dowser’s bodyto shield the ‘dowsing sensors’ from the radiation. Harvalik concludedthat the sensors exist in the area of the kidneys and in the brain, possiblyin the pineal region. Several questions can be raised about this experiment.Were the dowsers responding to the electromagnetic radiation or to someother possible stimulus associated with the high-frequency generator (e.g.slight noise or heat)? Secondly, were the dowsers aware of the experimenter’sexpectation as to location of the sensors? If the dowsers were always ableto sense the field, they may indicate no reaction when the shielding wasplaced in a position they expected to be effective. Overall, given thehigh rate of success, this is one of the best experiments supporting thevalidity of dowsing. Cope suggests several mechanisms to account for sensitivityto magnetic fields. Thus, biological superconductive Josephson junctionsmight explain such sensitivity (Cope, 1973). In a series of articles (e.g.Cope, 1978, 1979a, 1979b) he suggests that magnetoelectric dipoles mighthelp to explain dowsing as well as auras and other reported phenomena.His work has been financed in part by the U.S. Office of Naval Research.He has not supported his ideas with direct experimental evidence. Another concept that may concern physiological effectsis the rather obscure idea of ‘noxious rays’. Some dowsers believe thatat certain locations, the earth gives off rays which damage health. Mostinvestigations of this have been done in 354
|
October 1982] Dowsing continental Europe, and few references have been translated. Klinckowstroem(1959) briefly presented some of the European findings. He concluded thatdowsers may indeed react to stimuli from the soil; although their naturemay be unknown. Tromp (1968) also reports experiments done in continentalEurope. One study found that mice preferred to sleep outside a dowsingzone rather than in one. Mice treated with a carcinogenic tar were saidto develop 30 per cent more carcinoma when placed inside dowsing zonesrather than outside them. In another experiment, dowsers located severaldowsing zones, across which a hedge was later planted. The hedge grew wellexcept at the dowsing zones. Bird (1979) has compiled an extensive listof references on the subject and has described a number of anecdotal casesand experimental investigations. Because the sum- maries in English arequite brief, it is not possible to evaluate this work critically. Two topics seemingly similar to noxious rays are thoseof ley lines and earth energies (supposed systems of energy patterns relatedto specific geographical locations and detectable by dowsing). C. Wilson(1978) has described some beliefs about this. There seems to be considerablecurrent interest in this area;The American Dowser (Earth MysteryRelated Publications, 1980) recently listed nine different publicationsconcerned with it. Nevertheless, the present writer knows of no well controlledexperimental work dealing with it. Zorab (1959) mentioned that the RoyalAcademy of Science of the Netherlands had investigated claims regardingearth rays and found them unconfirmed. Hopwood (1979) claimed to have establishedan artificial ley with a wire and monitored his own dowsing reactions;but Scorer, Parsons, and Tart (1980) pointed out that as the tests werenot double blind no conclusions could be validly drawn from them. Taylorand Balanovski (1979b) reporting a test in which dowser Bill Lewis claimedto detect energy bands around an ancient standingstone, noted that magnetometerreadings seemed to validate Lewis’s claim but that a more sensitive magnetometerwould be required for a definite conclusion. Various studies of the physiological changes accompanyingdowsing reactions seem to agree. Changes in skin potential were noted bya number of in- vestigators. There seems to be no evidence disputing thisfinding for the cases in which a dowser crosses a ‘dowsing zone’. Pisani,Deodato, and Nigro (1969) report that a magnetic field (800 Oe) appliedto the palms of the hands reduced electrical skin resistance. Perhaps additionalwork on acupuncture (as described by Tiller in Mitchcll, 1974) or otherwork involving electrical conductivity between points on the skin wouldshed further light on this matter. Although considerably less work hasbeen done on physiological effects than in attempting to determine whetherhumans are able to detect weak magnetic anomalies or other electromagneticradiation, what has been done strengthens the evidence for human sensitivityto such weak anomalies. Harvalik’s work attempting to locate dowsing sensorsis especially notable for this. PARAPSYCHOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS Since early investigations by the SPR, various investigatorshave approached dowsing from a parapsychological standpoint, notably atthe Parapsychology Laboratory at Duke University. As with the biophysicalwork, various levels of control were used, and results have not been consistent.
355
|
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research Vol.51 No.792 J. B. Rhine (1950) tested Henry Gross to determine if hecould discern whether or not water was flowing through an underground pipeline.The control valve was some distance from the dowsing site and was out ofsight of the dowser. For some of the trials a coin toss was used to determinewhether the water was to be turned on or off; for other trials it was determinedmentally by the experimenter. In the first section of the experiment, significant missingwas found (p < 0.001), and the consistency of the missing was also impressive.A noticeable decline effect was also noted between the first and secondhalves; however, it was not quite significant. Rhine felt that the resultsindicated the use of ESP and discussed this later (Rhine, 1952). Severalweaknesses of this pilot study should be noted. Possibility of sensoryleakage was not completely eliminated. Slight vibrations from water movingin the pipe might have been present, and verbal cues between experimentersmight have been possible. Although several impressive statistically significantitems were found, it seems they were derived from post-hoc analysis, andas discussed by Nicol (1955), this might be explained by possible nonrandomnessof the experimenter’s mentally determined trials. Taking all the datapresented of the tests with Henry Gross, there was no overall significanthitting or missing; Rhine did not comment on this. Remi Cadoret, an M.D. on the staff of the Duke ParapsychologyLaboratory, also investigated dowsing. He experimented to determine ifthe results and patterns of responses on one ESP task could be used reliablyto predict results on another similar task (Cadoret, 1955). Several pilot series were first run. A penny wasplaced under one of 25 tiles arranged in a grid (5 by 5). The subjectswere taught to use a pendulum (a button on a string) as a dowsing tooland were asked to pick the row and the column containing the penny. Althoughthe possibility of sensory cues was not completely eliminated, overallresults were not significant. However a very significant decline effectwas found between the first and second halves (p = 0.0014). In another experiment a map was laid over the 5 by 5 grid.The map showed the squares corresponding to the tiles underneath and alsocorresponding to a grid established in the back yard of the experimenter.For some of the trials, a penny was placed under a tile beneath the map;for other trials a penny was placed in one of the back yard grid squares(the subjects did not know whether the penny was under the map or in theback yard). For this experiment each subject made 18 responses, six usingthe pendulum, six using roller bearing dowsing rods (apparently L-rods),and six with the subjects calling his findings aloud. From the resultsof the tests with the pennies below the titles, Cadoret noted the patternof response in relation to the target (e.g. some dowsers might consistentlymiss the target by one row or column). He devised a mathematical procedureto predict the correct target square given the dowser’s response, and wasable to predict the location of the pennv for those trials in which thepenny was in the back yard significantly better than chance, p = 0.018.This experiment was the most tightly controlled, and sensory cues seemto have been completely ruled out. Karlis Osis also carried out several dowsing experimentswhile working at the Duke Parapsychology Laboratory (Osis, 1960). One ofhis special subjects was a Mr. Gwaltney, a superintendent with a localgas company. For one of the tests,
356
|
October 1982] Dowsingten small trenches were dug and covered with boards. Eighteen inch longpipes were randomly placed in the trenches. The subject then walked overthe trenches while holding a pair of dowsing rods. In the first part ofthe experiment, the experimenter was present with the dowser, knew thelocation of the pipes, and recorded the subject’s responses, but for therest of the time the location of the pipes was unknown to the experimenterwho recorded the responses. In the experiment with the targets unknownto the experimenter the results were marginally significant (p = 0.03).For the entire experiment, the results were quite significant (p = 0.003).Normal sensory cues could possibly have played a part; each time the targetswere placed, there may have been some slight tell-tale disturbance of thesurrounding area. The type of material of the pipe is not mentioned; perhapsthe results could be explained by sensitivity to magnetic anomalies ratherthan psi. Osis also conducted tests in the laboratory with two selectedsubjects; one had had spontaneous psi experiences, the other had previousdowsing experience. Either money or photographs were randomly placed underone of 25 tiles arranged in a 5 by 5 grid. Subjects were asked to indicatethe row and column in which the target object was placed by using a buttonon a thread as a pendulum. Based on direct hits, the results were marginallysignificant (p = 0.02). Details given in the report are rather sketchy,and it is difficult to trace whether sensory cueing could have been involved.Osis also tested Cadoret’s hypothesis that the patterns of hits and misseson one task could be used to predict hits for a similar task; his datadid not support the hypothesis. Map dowsing tests were conducted at the ParapsychologyLaboratory with subjects as far away as Germany. No significant resultswere obtained. Osis did find one subject with whom there were indicationsof a consistent missing pattern which might have confirmed Cadoret’s hypothesis,but not enough data were collected to draw final conclusions. Two short studies were reported by Pope (1950)inParapsychology Bulletin. Miss Kirby, Lecturer in Biology at HarrogateTraining College in England, conducted a series of tests in which a specialsubject attempted to locate a coin placed under one of several possiblepieces of thick cardboard. Although the experiment was rather short (63trials), the results were very significant (p < 10-6), butthough precautions were taken, sensory cues might have been available.In tests conducted by the Physiology Department at Guy’s Hospital London,dowsers were asked to determine whether or not water was flowing in a concealedpipe beneath them and to locate the courses of underground drains. Detailsare sketchy, and sensory cues were apparently not eliminated; they foundquite positive results. Unfortunately few details are available, and nonumber of trials or successes was given. Moss and Sands (1970) report an experiment in winch anexperienced dowser was pitted against a novice and a person using a ‘scientificmethod’ to predict winners of horse races. The dowser held a pencil overthe racing form until a pull was felt to the name of a horse. The noviceattempted a similar method. In the first experiment the dowser ‘won’ moremoney than the other two when imaginary bets were placed but no statisticalcomparison was made in the report to determine whether the results weresignificantly different from chance. Recently, Anselmo (1978) reporteda successful dowsing test. Subjects were
357
|
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research [Vol. 51, No. 792 asked to locate coins underneath poster-boards. The overall resultswere considerably above chance (p < 0.001). It is not clear whethersensory cues were entirely eliminated, and the experimenter recorded boththe dowser’s guess and the actual location which allowed possible biasedrecording errors. Francis Hitching (1978), author of the bookDowsingThe Psi Connection (reviewed by Cox, 1978; and Hvman, 1979), conducteda map dowsing experiment testing Bill Lewis, a retired electrical engineerin South Wales, to see if he could use dowsing to locate ancient megalithicsites (standing stones, burial chambers, etc.) in North America. Lewiswas given maps of several areas and asked to locate such sites. He helda pencil in one hand and a pendulum in the other; and he moved the pencilover the map until the pendulum indicated a good site. Lewis then askedhimself a number of questions which could be answered yes or no. From theinformation so derived, he gave a description of the site. These predictionsand locations were shown to John Stiles, chairman of the ESP committeeof the SPR; he formulated a series of similar predictions for locationsnear the sites of those of Lewis. Stiles made his predictions by guessesbased on those of Lewis. Hitching then visited most of the sites and comparedthe two sets of descriptions with the sites. He found much greater correspondencewith the predictions of Lewis than those of Stiles. The major weaknessof this procedure is the difficulty of making an unbiased evaluation. Thedescriptions given by Hitching did indicate that unusual results may havebeen obtained (his claims were far stronger). More rigorous controls couldproduce a more convincing demonstration. A number of unsuccessful experiments have beenreported. Mr. P. A. Ongley, a New Zealand research chemist, tested theclaims of 75 dowsers. These ranged from medical diagnosis to tracking people,etc. He concluded that all were unwarranted. Although many tests were conducted,and a large amount of numerical data was presented in his article (Ongley,1948); few details were given. Many of the claims appear to have been testedwith only one or two trials. He seemed to make the tests fair to the dowsers,but the tone of his report suggests that he probably had a rather strong,preconceived opinion against dowsing. Another series of unsuccessful experiments was reportedinNature by R. A. Foulkes (1971). Experiments were organized bythe British Army and Ministry of Defence to determine if buried mines couldbe located by either map or field dowsing; dowsing for water was also tested.For the map dowsing tests, 20 inert mines were buried along several militaryroads. Seven dowsers were given maps of the roads and asked to locate themines. Only chance results were obtained. For the field dowsing, a 20 by20 grid was established with each square being 20 feet (6.1 metres) ona side. Five different types of objects (80 of each type) were buried randomly.Tests were conducted with 22 dowsers to determine whether they could identifythe objects. Again only chance results were obtained. An experienced dowserwas asked to determine whether water was flowing in a plastic pipe. Thewater was randomly turned on or off for 50 trials. No significant resultswere obtained. From the report, the tests seem to have been well organizedand well conducted. Another unsuccessful experiment was conducted by severalmembers of The American Society for Psychical Research including LauraDale, Gardner
358
|
October 1982] Dowsing Murphy, and Montague Ullman (Dale, Greene, Miles, Murphy, Trefethen,and Ullman, 1951). Twenty-seven dowsers were taken separately to a smallfield near Liberty, Maine and asked to locate the best spot for a well,estimate the depth, and the flow rate. Pipes were later driven, water levelmeasured, and the wells were pumped to determine the capacity. A waterengineer and a geologist were asked to estimate depth and flow rate atseveral locations (the engineer and geologist knew of a nearby well, thedowsers did not). The soil was relatively soft, and the water table wasnearly level and close to the surface. The geologist’s and engineer’s predictionswere quite good; the dowsers’ predictions were quite far from the mark.Because the water table was nearly level over the site, perhaps there wereno distinct subsurface anomalies. Barrington and Stiles (1973) conducted an investigationof a commercial divining instrument called the ‘Revealer’. The Revealerwas to be used for locating underground services and was basically a pairof L-rods. A number of public utilities, engineering companies, and localauthorities had purchased Revealers, and Barrington and Stiles sent thema questionnaire regarding their use and satisfaction with the instrument.Most assessments were favourable. Five representatives of organizationsgiving favourable replies were selected for field tests. Several differenttesting procedures were used, but usually objects were buried in a sandpit, marked in a fashion to indicate a grid, and dowsers were asked toselectthe squares in which target objects (two-foot long sections of pipe ofvarious materials) were buried. Subjects were usually given only 5 to 10trials. Only one of the five persons tested showed promise. He was subsequentlytested again (under admittedly poor conditions) but did not repeat hisperformance. James Randi (1979), professional magician and member ofthe Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal,conducted a test with four dowsers in Italy. Procedures were spelled outin detail prior to the test and agreed upon by the dowsers. The dowserswere asked to locate three buried pipes with running water and to placepegs over the route of the pipes. As stated by Chamberlin (1980), the testhad several deficiencies. No meaningful statistical evaluation was possible.Even if the dowsers had been quite close, they were unlikely to fulfilthe requirements for a successful test (they were required to place thepegs in a strip eight inches wide). None of them was able to claim Randi’s$10,000 reward. The test contributed little knowledge to the scientificcommunity. Bryant (1931), Carpenter (1877), Christopher (1970),MacFayden (1946), Parsons (1959), and West (1948) report unsuccessful tests.Unfortunately evaluations cannot be made since few details were given orfew trials were conducted. J. W. Gregory (1928) and Sollas (1884) revieweda number of tests conducted in the late nineteenth and early twentiethcentury; most produced negative results. Overall, dowsers have performed reasonably well on dowsingtests purporting to require psi ability. Unfortunately reports are rathersketchy and some seem to indicate possible sensory cues. Of the tests reviewed, only three stand out as well conducted—themap dowsing tests of Cadoret, Osis, and Foulkes. Of these, only one producedsignificant results, and that barely significant. It is unknown how manyother
359
|
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research [Vol. 51, No. 792 well conducted studies have been unsuccessful. Overall, the parapsychologicalinvestigations into dowsing remain inconclusive. If any additional work is done, it would be advisable touse map dowsing so that sensory cues could be eliminated (experimentersshould be aware that some maps, topographical ones for instance, mightgive relevant sensory information, depending upon the dowsing task). Experimentersmay get better results if definite steps are taken to create a positiveenvironment and a realistic test situation as suggested by W. H. Jack. MOVEMENT OF THE ROD Most dowsing research has been geared to determine how(and if) the dowser obtains the information he seeks; this has been discussed.The cause of the dowsing rod’s movement has also been a source of controversyfor some time, but has not received much experimental investigation. Overall, the prevailing view is that movement of the dowsingrod is caused by unconscious muscular action. Even the debunkers such asGardner (1952/1957), Rawcliffe (1952/1959), and Vogt and Hyman (1959) attributeit to this, and the last two discuss a number of motor automatisms in theirbook. The idea is by no means new; a Jesuit Preist, Father Athanasius Kircher,suggested this explanation in 1641 (Barrett and Besterman, 1926/1968).William F. Barrett too was a strong proponent of the theory (cf. Barrettand Besterman, 1926/1968; Bennett and Barrett, 1897), and his writingsseem to have influenced nearly all other investigators. Bennett (in Bennett and Barrett, 1897), Glardon(1898), Hyslop (in Barrett, 1912), and Hyslop (1913) questioned whetherunconscious muscular action could account for every case of the sometimesspectacular movement of the dowsing rod. A number of anecdotal cases andthe observations of many dowsers tended to throw doubt on this explanation;although apparently at that time no experimental studies were conductedto test it. Glardon (1898) suggested that the traditional twig be replacedby an instrument made so as to preclude the possibility of muscular actioninterfering with the operation of the instrument. He suggested the useof ‘something like a clock or manometer with a steel hand, by means ofwhich the workings of the unknown force could not only be revealed, butmeasured’. A recent experiment was conducted by Alvin Kaufman (1971,1979), an electronics engineer, to test this idea. Kaufman attached oneend of a forked stick to a strain gauge bending beam which could measurethe force in the rod. He held the strain gauge bending beam in one handand the other end of the stick with the other. Kaufman found that whenthe dowser he tested moved over an underground stream, a very much largerforce was exerted on the rod than could normally be accounted for; andconcluded that dowsing was a promising area in which to study PK. Althoughthe published report is extremely short and gives few details, it appearsthat PK may indeed play a part in some dowsing phenomena. SOVIET RESEARCH The Soviet bloc countries have also pursued research indowsing for some time. Vasiliev (1965) mentions that such work was doneas early as 1916.
360
|
October 1982] Dowsing Relatively little has been translated into English, and that which hascontains few details. Four brief summaries, Ostrander and Schroeder (1971), Bakirovand Sochevanov (1976), Sochevanov and Matveyev (1976), and Williamson (1979)indicate that the Soviets approach the subject from a biophysical standpoint.In fact much of the Russian literature on dowsing uses the term biophysicaleffect (BPE). Ostrander and Schroeder present numerous findings and conclusionsof Soviet investigators, but virtually no details are given of experimentalprocedure, which devalues the results given. Bakirov and Sochevanov givea brief history of the recent research and development of dowsing in theSoviet Union and show that it is being used to find ore deposits. No experimentaldetails are given; although a 12 item bibliography (all Russian) is included.Sochevanov and Matveyev record numerous conclusions of various investigatorspresent at a conference on the subject. Williamson discussed several publishedRussian articles indicating that dowsing is used to supplement geophysicalmethods: In one region 1,120 wells were said to have been dug on siteslocated by dowsers. Again, almost no details were given. The proceedings of the Second International Congress onPsychotronic Research included several papers on dowsing. Apostol and Dumitrescu(1975) presented an abstract on their work. They found that the electricpotential between dowsers’ palms was correlated with a number of variablessuch as galvanic skin response, magnetic field, soil temperature, and atmosphericpressure. They found that the ‘dowsing area’ (an undefined term) was correlatedto geophysical anomalies and that its extent showed a diurnal variation.Miklos, Moldovan, Kun-Stoicu, and Levin (1975) presented results of a ‘WeddingRing Test’ which used a dowsing procedure to determine the sex of an unbornchild. The experimenter held a pendulum (a wedding ring suspended froma folded hair) over the hand of the expectant mother. The pattern of theswing was used to predict the sex. Only 15 cases were run under the experimentalconditions; ten successes were obtained, too few for statistical significance. Boleslav and Boleslav (1970) briefly review theliterature of biological effects of electric and magnetic fields. Theymention, in passing, their own experiments with a coil of wire; showingthat dowsers were sensitive to the field when the coil was vertical butnot when it was horizontal. They claim too that their experiments indicatethat dowsers are sensitive to electromagnetic frequencies in the broadcastingbands but give no details. They also claim that turbulent or atomized wateremits an unknown undulation that is similar to electromagnetic radiation.A discussion of this idea ran to several pages but remained obscure. Naumov and Vilenskaya (1972) produced a bibliography onparapsychology, including a section on dowsing. The bibliography was quicklytranslated and published by the U.S. government. The portion covering thebiophysical effect includes 25 items of apparently scientific work and27 items of popular literature. Another section deals with the electricand magnetic fields of living organisms, and a section on foreign workalso lists several studies of dowsing. Wortz, Bauer, Blackwelder, Eerkens, and Saur (1977, 1979),employees of AiResearch Manufacturing Company, reviewed the Soviet workin parapsychology, including dowsing, but concluded that much of that availablesuggests a poor understanding of physics and a failure to deal with thepsychological
361
|
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research [Vol. 51, No. 792 processes involved. In fact the presentations of dowsing investigationsin the Soviet bloc leave much to be desired. The work translated offerslittle more than additional anecdotal material. The actual sophisticationof experimental methodology is vague because the translated reports areso brief. SOCIOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS Ray Hyman and Evon Z. Vogt conducted several studies todetermine why water witching was such a widespread and persistent practice.A portion of their work at Harvard University was supported by the Hodgsonfund. Their findings were presented in their bookWater Witching U.S.A.(reviewed by Levinson, 1959; Parsons, 1960; and Woodruff, 1959) and ina number of journal articles (e.g. Hyman and Cohen, 1957; Hyman and Vogt,1958, 1968; Vogt, 1952; and Vogt and Golde, 1958). They assumed that dowsingis not effective in locating underground water, and cited several studiessupporting this idea, but ignored studies indicating the efficacy of dowsing. For the major survey, 500 county agricultural extensionagents were questioned about their belief in the effectiveness of dowsing,the number of dowsers they knew, and the educational level, age, religion,ethnic background, etc. of the dowsers. The authors concluded that therewere approximately 25,000 dowsers in the United States; that dowsers couldnot be distinguished from their community on the bases of religion, ethnicgroup, level of education, or occupation; and that the dowsers were reportedto be honest people who made little or no money from practising dowsing. The highest percentage of dowsers occurred, as expected,in areas with severe groundwater problems. The investigators claim thatdowsing is a ritual pattern reducing anxiety about the uncertainty of locatinga well. Barrett and Vogt (1969) report a study of urbandowsers and found some definite differences from their rural counterparts.The study was conducted by surveying and interviewing members of the AmericanSociety of Dowsers. The urban dowsers had a higher educational level andmost lived in cities of over 50,000 people. They had a strong belief inESP and thought it related to dowsing, while the rural dowsers usuallycould give no explanation as to why dowsing worked. FINAL COMMENTS In spite of the large number of investigations made intodowsing, its status remains unclear. This is largely a result ofsloppy experimental procedures and or report writing. For some people, dowsing does appear to be a useful problemsolving tool. Dowsers do seem to be goal orientated, and in this reviewer’sexperience, most do not care how it works: just as well perhaps, sincescience has no definitive answer. Critics and proponents alike should payheed to the ideas of a grade school class that studied dowsing (Boone,1965)—Conclusions should not be drawn on the basis of one experiment. The biophysical investigations have resulted in a widerange of findings in regard to human sensitivity to magnetic fields. Welldescribed reports are available indicating considerable sensitivity aswell as lack of results. If further work is done in this area, rigorousexperimental controls must be applied, and
362
|
October 1982] Dowsing the site of the experiment should be checked for magnetic anomalies.If it is found that humans are much more sensitive than previously expected,parapsychological experiments may require more elaborate shields to ruleout ordinary communication channels. The physiological studies seem to be the most consistent.A number of investigators have reported a change in skin potential whendowsers cross certain ‘dowsing zones’. Although much of this work is 30years old, it seems to be the most promising area for further study. As indicated previously, to prove that dowsing is a functionof psi, more successful, strictly controlled tests will be required. Inmost of the studies testing this idea, sensory cues w ere not ruled out.Of the three map dowsing experiments reviewed, one obtained marginallysignificant results. Further experiments testing the psi hypothesis shouldutilize map dowsing to rule out sensory information to the subject. Itwould also be desirable to conduct the testing with a ‘real’ problem. In short, the work investigating dowsing from a biophysicaland physiological standpoint is promising but not totally compelling. Considerablymore experimental work is required to support the case that dowsing isa psi process. REFERENCES 363
|
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research [Vol. 51, No. 792
364
|
October 1982] Dowsing
365
|
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research [Vol. 51, No. 792
366
|
October 1982] Dowsing
367
|
| |
