[meteorite-list] Stop Naysaying! and go test it yourself!

From: drvann at sas.upenn.edu <drvann_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 00:07:10 -0400
Message-ID: <1287115630.4cb7d36ec739a_at_webmail.sas.upenn.edu>

Kudos for bringing this back to meteorites, Phil -
I wanted to do so by pointing out that Mike Murray's original challenge does
represent a scientific question, with an implicit hypothesis. He later made it
explicit.

The question: do dowsing rods act differently near a meteorite than they do near
man-made metal objects? He asked the question without (at least initially)
revealing why - therefore setting up a blind test.

Note that it doesn't have to work to propose the question or test it in
scientific fashion.

The hypothesis: meteorites will affect dowsing rods differently than
anthropogenic metal will. In statistical jargon (I'm one of those reviewers that
reject papers for improperly applied stats),we would present it thus: The null
hypothesis is that dowsing rods perform the same way in the presence either
meteorites or anthropogenic metal. The alternative hypothesis is that the rods
will behave differently.

Kudos for Phil for his proposal - he gets it about right. He presents the chain
of logic that provides a mechanistic explanation. [please do keep in mind that
science does not and cannot purport to examine the supernatural -it may find
that seemingly supernatural events are natural in cause, but the true
supernatural is not science]

Disturbances in the Earth's electromagnetic field that can be (if only
subconsciously) detected by a person, who translates this perception through
the ideomotor effect into a visible response. This is a hypothetical
mechanistic explanation. (this may be wrong - there may be a supernatural or
alternate natural explanation-it may be complete hokum, but it doesn't have to
work to conduct the test)

If he buries the meteorite and tests someone else who has no knowledge of its
location, this is a 'blind' test. If his neighbor buries it somewhere, but Phil
doesn't know where, and he then has a third person seek it, this is a
'double-blind' test. In the latter case, neither the subject nor the
experimentor knows the answer.

As proposed, this test can be criticized, of course. First is the problem of
sample size, one of the most common issues with experiments. If four people
seek the meteorite and all four find it, it can be shown that it is very
unlikely to be merely coincidence (but *not* impossible). A sample size of
twenty people, wherein at least 80% find the meteorite, would be very
convincing.

Second, it is suggested by some dowsers that this is a special skill.
Consequently, using randomly selected people would bias the result against a
positive finding. So, only people who claim they can use dowsing tools to
locate objects should be tested. As the group most likely to succeed, any
failure to attain a high rate of success is a demonstration that they can't (at
least) find meteorites.

Finally, the meteorite should be buried in an undetectable way - such as in a
plowed field where all the dirt is already disturbed. If you are really good at
removing and replacing divots, maybe a nice, even lawn would be a good test
platform. Conceivably, dowsing works because the person is highly attuned to
small environmental cues - slight dips in the surface over buried pipes,
changes in vegetation, whatever. They then, possibly without even understanding
what they are doing, 'read' the site and deduce where a good spot is located.
The rods merely serve to focus their attention and display the ideomotor effect
as driven by dowser's reading of environmental cues. So, we want to remove or
obfuscate any cues of this nature (from burying the test sample).

Technically, the entire chain from rods to person, etc. should be tested
separately, but that may be implausible. I don't agree with Darren's suggestion
of a mechanical dowser - I'll go (an actually very short way) out a limb and
predict that, if you do this, the motion of the rods will be completely
"random" - a hard-to-predict response to vibrations from the motion of the
robot. The dowsing effect is allegedly a human 'skill', 'sense', whatever, so I
don't think removing that variable actually tests the question.

Here is an additional, even easier, test. Have dowsers walk over your yard,
telling them that there is something out there, please find it. But don't
actually bury anything. See if they all indicate the same spot, or random
spots. If there is a consistent pattern, maybe something is going on. In any
case, dig up all the spots and see if you find anything - maybe they'll locate
that hidden pirate treasure....


But, you know what? None of this tests Mr. Murray's original question. Try this:
get a big box. Place, at random, different metal objects; meteorites, pipes, tea
kettles - whatever. Each time you change the object (or better, someone changes
the object behind your back), you then challenge a dowser to see if they get
anything when passing over the box. They should get nothing when the box is
empty, and either nothing or something as you change metals. If they correctly
determine whether there is anything in the box, and there are consistent
differences between meteorites and other metals, then Mr. Murray is on to
something.

Remember, though, the sample size. A given individual must be able to
reproducibly find an object with a greater than about 60% success rate in ten
or 12 trials in order to have a sample size larger enough to assert a high
*probability* of success. This gets around a chance result for an individual.
Then, do this for six or more people. That will likely provide a sample size
large enough to determine the probability that this a actual effect.

I have not seen the Randi video, so I cannot address why he was able to explain
away an apparent anomaly with statistics. But, I do want to disabuse any of my
audience that has made it this far of any notion that statistics can be used to
prove or disprove anything. Statistics, without a doubt, does not and cannot
prove or disprove a proposition - it cannot for purely philosophical and
theoretical considerations, and no statistician should ever tell you
differently. At best, statistical analysis determines the probability that your
data are consistent with your hypothesis.


David R. Vann

P.S. Isn't Odessa a ruster? I'd use a Gibeon - but whatever, don't put it in a
plastic bag, because then it won't be 'grounded' for the dowsers....



Quoting JoshuaTreeMuseum <joshuatreemuseum at embarqmail.com>:

> OK, here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to take Michael Murray up on his
> original proposition that started this crazy thread. I'm going to make some
> divining rods like Warren's dad made. Then I'll bury a 10 kilo Odessa
> meteorite a foot underground. I will then see if it shorts out the Earth's
> magnetic field enough to affect the electro-chemical reactions in my brain
> producing a muscular twitching resulting in the crossing of the magical
> rods. I will have 3 other people try it that don't know where the meteorite
> is buried for a sort of triple blind experiment. I will disguise the hole so
> they can't see it. I'll report back the results. This groundbreaking
> experiment will settle this silly argument once and for all. (Notice how I
> brought the thread back to the subject of meteorites!)
>
> Phil Whitmer
>
> ---------------------------
>
> Hi Chris & list,
>
> While I agree with you , I must do so with a small grain of salt.
>
> I nearly quoted your previous email statement to my father regarding
> divining rods .
>
> He smiled at me, went inside and brought out 2 coat hangers. He cut them and
> produced two straightened pieces of wire. He then bent them both the same
> way, nearly at a 90 degree angle with one end longer than the other. He then
> held the short ends, one in each and hand, loosely out in front of him. He
> walked across the lawn over a buried water pipe and the two wires went from
> pointing forward to crossing each other. They crossed exactly when he walked
> over the pipe and then uncrossed when he was past it.
>
> I didn't believe any of it, so he handed them to me. Like a fool ( I felt
> like one, holding two pieces of wire walking around), I took them and
> repeated what he had done. Damned if they didn't cross exactly the same way.
> I could back up slowly and they would move slowly at the same time, crossing
> when over the pipe.
>
> I took this situation to school. A professor listened and proposed we try
> some tests. All in all.... our conclusion was that you can call it bunk, but
> if you were thirsty, you could find water pipes easily.
>
> I have not found much REAL data on the subject. My own theories about why
> the wire worked wouldn't jive with sticks or plastics.... While I didn't
> believe in it scientifically I can honestly say, if I were dying of thirst
> and had to find water underground in a pipe(lol) you'd find me with some
> coat hangers and a glass.
>
> Warren Sansoucie
> IMCA #3174
> St. Louis MO
>
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
Received on Fri 15 Oct 2010 12:07:10 AM PDT