Talk:Dowsing

Dowsing articles are a mess

I notice that a lot of the articles related to dowsing are a mess. I'm well aware that science does not accept the claims of dowsing - but there is more to this subject than whether or not it is a scientific fact, and it is of interest to me to read "interior views", i.e. notions and ideas from people who are inside the dowsing community.

The geopathic stress article, for example, redirects to telluric current. The earth radiation page seems to be little more than a long winded couple of paragraphs saying "this is rubbish", without explaining the subject in greater detail.

As for black streams, there is no proper article on the subject.

The dowsing article itself is the same. Despite the fact that dowsing has been practised for millennia in numerous parts of the world, features in art, literature and folklore, and has been punished severely as a form of witchcraft, most of the article is slanted towards test data. (There is some cultural/historical material at the beginning, but not enough frankly.) I don't know if I've expressed this very well. I'm all for sceptics offering refutations or alternative views on the subject - however that is only part of the issue. I don't believe in unicorns, but I don't just want to read an article saying that they don't exist (I know that already). Unicorns have a much wider cultural function than as a supposed biological entity. It's also interesting to read explanations of how the idea could have originated.-MacRùsgail (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that, without the test-data material, people try to use the article to say categorically "dowsing works" - which we shouldn't be saying in Wikipedia. If you want to expand on the cultural significance of Dowsing go ahead. But understand that the article is as it stands with a reason. Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point. I don't give a monkey's cuss about test data, I'm well aware it isn't scientifically accepted. I'm interested in other aspects of this subject just now. I'm not just here to read a debunking. I was actually looking to find a discussion of concepts, a glossary, and something about the evolution/development of the thing.-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that dowsing concepts and history could be covered much better in Wikipedia, regardless of whether dowsing is accurate or valid. If you are up to taking on the task yourself, so much the better. You should to take care, however, when copying claims that dowsing goes back millennia. On close examination, claims that dowsing goes back farther than 15th-century Central Europe are often speculative at best, or based on the logical fallacy of equivocation (for example: falsely assuming that divination = dowsing, or rhabdomancy = dowsing, or virgula divina of ancient Rome = virgula divina of Renaissance Europe). Regards. Plazak (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not up to the task. I have some knowledge of dowsing, but not much at all about the history of it. However, most dowsing seems to be rhabdomancy, and it is a subset of both rhabdomancy and divination. (Template:Divination doesn't include dowsing on it by the way.) On the other hand, the popular notion that dowsing is merely looking for water, is an oversimplification and ignores the fact that dowsers regularly search for numerous other things from minerals to ley lines to ghosts.

Two quite divergent forms of dowsing are listed under "rods" - a Y branch is used slightly differently to unconnected rods, and is supposed to employ a different form of movement. (The Y branch tends to move vertically, the rods horizontally.) A third, listed separately, the pendulum, much more clearly blends into more general forms of divination, and has the added factor that its movement is more likely to be affected by air currents etc.

I dispute the Eurocentric view as well. There is a massive overlap between dowsing and certain non-European forms of geomancy, including Feng Shui. As I have said, the historical material could be beefed up considerably. The scientific data should remain, but it's not the only point of interest here.-MacRùsgail (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Dubious sentence

" it remains popular among believers in Forteana or radiesthesia." - A bit of howler from someone of a binary believer/sceptic worldview, and actually a gross distortion of what Forteana means. Forteana is something that people take an interest in, it's not a belief system. Some Forteana is most definitely real (or at least due to perception), and one can take an interest in the more dubious stuff without necssarily believing in it.

Forteana really refers to unusual things, sometimes including the supposedly anomalous. This can include looking at unusual beliefs, or practices as well. -MacRùsgail (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert Boyle?

I've read a few things that attempt to give a history of dowsing. Most of them seem to claim that Robert Boyle (Yes, the chemist) wrote something about Dowsing. The scholarship of these authors was not particularly good, and I haven't been able to find anything written by Robert Boyle that is clearly discussing Dowsing, but I'm no Robert Boyle scholar. Does anyone have evidence that Robert Boyle actually mentions dowsing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.129.20.66 (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Historical illustrations

That poor diviner seen in the 18th century... he appears to have been standing there for a couple of centuries in exactly the same pose, wearing exactly the same (now anachronistic) clothes, as when he appeared in the De Re Metallica woodcut above. Clearly the 18th century image is not actually of someone observed by Thomas Pennant, although it may well have been used as an illustration in his book, but copied from the earlier illustration. Runox (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)