Like it? Share it!

Sign up for news and updates!






Enter word seen below
Visually impaired? Click here to have an audio challenge played.  You will then need to enter the code that is spelled out.
Change image

CAPTCHA image
Please leave this field empty

Login Form



The Dowsing Delusion Is Still With Us PDF Print E-mail
Swift
Written by James Randi   

A January 1996 magazine article opened with the story of a Brooklyn attorney in a video store trying to decide whether she should rent the videotape Barney's Imagination Island for her daughter. The learned counselor, it said, took a small pendulum from her purse, suspended it over the tape, and said,

All right, now please tell me how much little Aliza would benefit from watching this tape, how much it would raise her social awareness, brighten her chakras, elevate her chi energy, and like that. And please let's try to be a little quicker about it.

Does that sound like an educated person having a conversation with a smple object? Well, that’s just what it is. No conversation with a pendulum has ever been known to result in an exchange, let alone an answer… The description continued:

The pendulum begins to swing, indicating a rating scale of 1-100. Sadly for Barney, the pendulum only gives the tape a 12.

Is this an article from some angel-eyed New Age rag? Perhaps a wacky satire in MAD Magazine? No such luck: it's from the January, 1996 issue of Smithsonian, the respected science and culture monthly published by the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. Titled "Urban New Agers Have Taken Over The Art Of Dowsing,", the seven-page piece actually went downhill from there, with scarcely a hint that a skeptical viewpoint about the subject even exists. Worse, this is not an isolated incident, but part of a disturbing trend: pseudoscience is beginning to creep into heretofore respectable publications. The article astonished me, and I cannot imagine who on the staff made the decision to run the piece. It was a highly positive article on dowsing, a seven-page paean to the inquiries that they claimed could be accomplished using pendulums and forked sticks – tasks such as choosing medications, vitamins and foods, finding water flowing underground, deciding upon which "Personal" ad to answer, and even – as we see – assessing videotapes for entertainment value!

There was, of course, the obligatory token skeptical content in the article, amounting in this case to 1.5 inches of type, in an article that ran 78 inches, with nine illustrations extolling the truth of this mythology! That was less than two percent of the entire piece, and that small portion was only mildly critical. No actual tests of the validity of the claim were mentioned, only uncontrolled demonstrations and stories of wonders. The article stated:

The relationship between dowsing and established science has always been distant, mutually suspicious.

Nonsense. There is no relationship. Science is logic, rationality, careful investigation, and experimentation – and that works: dowsing is wishful thinking, superstition and mythology that doesn't work. Was there any mention in this article of the numerous, comprehensive, carefully-controlled tests of dowsing that have been done – some by the JREF – tests that showed it was totally without merit? No, in the pages of this prestigious science magazine, only anecdotal experiences were given, and blatantly unproven "theories" and "facts" from wide-eyed wand-wavers who don't know logic from lingerie.

This article was of course embraced and celebrated by the American Society of Dowsers, an organization that adamantly refuses to allow their claims to be tested, and has vigorously avoided trying to win the JREF prize. No retraction will ever serve to neutralize this irresponsible attack on rationality. It’s happened before. When New Scientist magazine in the UK ran a very positive three-page piece on dowsing in December 1979 reporting experiments that gave 100% positive results, it began with the statement

Dowsing works; that much is certain.

What followed was a typically uncontrolled set of observations by a dedicated dowser. Then, some months later, when UK skeptic Denys Parsons repeated the experiments with the author of the article – this time double-blind – the results were: 121 correct, 129 wrong, a result well within statistical expectations with a probability of 50% success by chance alone. For some reason, the very detailed Parsons article lay about the New Scientist editor's desk for a full two years, and then the summarized results – but never the article itself – appeared on a back page of the magazine, and occupied less than one page. Typically, the dowsers have been citing the former article for years now; the subsequent refutation is never mentioned.

Sigh.

Trackback(0)
Comments (6)Add Comment
"Still with us"?
written by gnathan87, March 14, 2012
While I am quite sure that dowsing is still with us, the articles mentioned here are 16 and 32 years old. Maybe my faith is misplaced that such an article would not find its way into a respected scientific publication now... it is quite embarrassing that they were published even then.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +6
...
written by Caller X, March 14, 2012
vigorously avoided trying to win the JREF prize


How is that different from not trying?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
It's not just print publications...
written by EarlyOut, March 14, 2012
The nonsense has taken over some TV channels that were once reasonably respectable. The History Channel started with some promise, but has now become a channel dominated by the Erich von Danikens of the world, the Sasquatch believers, and various sorts of "researchers" who spend their time sitting in dark rooms and excitedly exclaiming, "What was that?!!" I thought that the National Geographic Channel was immune, but lately they've been wandering into the woo, as well. NOVA has, on several occasions, done some excellent take-downs of moronic claims - I wish they'd do much more of it.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +6
@gnathan87
written by lytrigian, March 14, 2012
Any reader of Science-Based Medicine can tell you that, if anything, the problem is even worse now, at least with respect to formerly-respectable medical journals. Bad enough when popular publications give attention to this garbage, but now we're getting it from supposedly scientific peer-reviewed journals.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by epicure, March 15, 2012
"vigorously avoided trying to win the JREF prize"

How is that different from not trying?

Well, it's funnier, to start with...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +11
sigh
written by kurtoli2, March 15, 2012
Every time you write about things like this, Randi, I too just have to 'sigh'. I've come to realize that all of our skeptical ways are just being seen by many as, 'taking the fun out of everything'. Why must we keep attacking people's belief in nonsense? After all, what's the harm? Well, as a long time fan of your work, I know what the harm is, and I thank you for continuing to remind us of how prominent, and unrelenting this kind of woo can be.
All we can do is continue fighting the good fight. I honestly do foresee (not really, 'foresee', but you know what I mean), a time long after you and I have gone, when this kind of nonsense will be ancient history. I see small indicators of the turning tide every once in a while, and it gives me hope. Woo simply won't be able to outlive science and reason. I hope
Thanks again
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +7

Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy