Talk:Dowsing

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dowsing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 years

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Alternative views Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Paranormal High‑importance This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to pseudoscience and fringe science, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

Arbitration ruling on the treatment of pseudoscience In December 2006, the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision included the following: Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Ideomotor mechanism

The lead currently states that "The motion of dowsing rods is now generally attributed to the ideomotor phenomenon, a psychological response where a subject makes motions unconsciously. Put simply, dowsing rods respond to the user's accidental or involuntary movements." and offers it as an alternative explanation to the pseudoscience. Yet I know a few dowsers, and most are adamant that this is exactly how dowsing works. Rather than trot out what dowsers believe, the sceptical alternative needs to get to grips with why invoking this universally accepted phenomenon is still regarded as pseudoscience. Obviously, it hinges on the fact that dowsers believe the involuntary muscular movement to be triggered by mystery forces (magnetism is a popular choice among them, as is some kind of psychic energy). So that is the bit which the lead - and the rest of the article - should explain and offer alternative mechanisms for. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:OR. --Hipal (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping that someone reading it may have come across a suitable RS confirming it. My comments on the need to tighten our presentation of the sceptical position are very much not OR. Some here may be happy with sloppy presentation, but I am not; it does scepticism a disservice. Of course, that depends on finding RS too....— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK the ideomotor reflex is, by definition, not triggered by some sort of external "energy" or whatever. If they claim that there is some sort of actual detection going on, then it is not the ideomotor effect. VdSV9•♫ 03:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. I think there are people who believe that the dowser is somehow clairvoyant, but the information ends up not in his conscious mind, but in the subconscious, from where it influences the rod via ideomotor effect. Bollocks, of course, and it would need a source that people think that, but it invalidates the "by definition" part. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forensics

There should be at least some mention of it's being taught for forensic use per https://www.themarshallproject.org/2022/03/17/witching-dowsing-buried-bodies-police --Hipal (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional dowsers

I just added Professor Calculus as a notable dowser. should I delete it as it is fictional, or should I just keep it?

~~~ π (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited pseudoscience statement in lede

@Roxy the dog: What ref? It doesn't have one. Don't get me wrong, I'm a scientist myself, but according to Wiki a pseudoscience makes claims to be a science but lacks the evidence to support those claims. Nowhere does the article say that dowsing claims to be a science in WP:RS. Bermicourt (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The two refs on the last para of the lead support the statement, as do the eight refs in the Pseudoscience section of the article. - Roxy the dog 18:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's helpful. However, a ref only applies to the preceding text; so if it supports the claim of the last sentence in the lede, it should be at the end of the sentence. Otherwise the sentence remains uncited.

But where does the article make the case that dowsing claims to be a science? There are lots of fields and activities that are not science and make no claim to be. They are clearly not pseudosciences. Bermicourt (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

that dowsing claims to be a science? Irrelevant. The content [1] is verified by reliable sources. --Hipal (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In which case you're saying the definition in the lede of pseudoscience is wrong. Which means anything that is not science can potentially be labelled as pseudoscience: art, history, music, philosophy, beauty, thought, conscience. In which case pseudoscience is the same as non-science and so useless as a separate concept. But maybe that definition is right... in which case this article needs to demonstrate that dowsing claims to be science. You can't have it both ways. Bermicourt (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, Hipal is not saying that, and all those conclusions are your own and nobody else's.

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. We cite them, and that is enough. It is not our job to trace the logic in the sources, and in the sources of the sources, and so on. That has already been done by more competent people. That is what makes the sources reliable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, read WP:LEDECITE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well then there is a contradiction between the pseudoscience lede and this article. Just citing WP:RS isn't enough. Scholars frequently disagree and if there is contradiction between them, it needs to be clarified otherwise readers will be left confused. Bermicourt (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out the exact problem(s), citing the current sources and any that you propose. Otherwise this appears to be WP:OR to change the WP:POV in an article under sanctions. --Hipal (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy disagrees with you. You will not find a WP policy page that says contradictions between articles are not allowed. I am not saying there is a contradiction, I am saying that even if there were one, there would be no problem. This discussion is pointless. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proponents of dowsing claim that it can be used to make predictions about the real world - that there is water/gold/oil/whatever at particular locations. That is what makes it pseudoscientific. Art, literature and so on are not science, but nobody claims that they can be used to detect where stuff is. If someone were to claim to be able to detect a gas pipeline by playing a violin, and they set up a series of dubious tests in an attempt to demonstrate this ability, that would be pseudoscientific. It wouldn't make all of music pseudoscience of course - mostly, it's about entertainment, self-expression, etc. Walking through a field with a couple of sticks as a piece of performance art, or just for fun, would not be pseudoscience - but would it still be dowsing if you weren't attempting to find something? It seems to me that dowsing is defined by the false claim that you can detect stuff with a pair of sticks - hence, it is fair to categorise it entirely as pseudoscience. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody kno that a Y shaped stick is the only way, those two-sticker dowsers are frauds. - Roxy the dog 12:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually quite funny. The government, mining companies, military all have dowsers on their staff. Finding missing persons, finding gold, finding information you can not otherwise get in any conventional way.

Science is Imperical, testable and repeatable. Dowsing has been proven, its just hidden from the masses like all other technologies. 2605:B100:950:336E:0:0:EBED:901 (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, they are tested. And when they are, they fail miserably -> James Randi and a Dowser. --McSly (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific explanation for some very specific types of dowsing

I once read an article that explained that in certain specific circumstances, dowsing can be easily explained. If a large water-filled cavity is located within an otherwise dry area, then by slowing pointing a carefully balanced rod on their palms in different directions, the rod might move (almost imperceptibly to a "non-trained" user) due to small variations in the gravitational field caused by the presence of water. Is that not true? DGWIKIEDIT (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't here to find out.

We are here to report what reliable sources say, and you are not a reliable source. Walter Ego 21:22, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inglis reference

OK, my bad. i didn't realize the Inglis reference that had no details was in the bibliography. I usually make my references self-contained. But it is still from 1986, so a bit old for a source of current use. I won't revert my change (concerning pendulum use), but I take back my comment that the reference is useless! Ed Gracely (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]