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

[JoshuaTreeMuseum]

Dr. Vann:
Those are some excellent suggestions for conducting an experiment.  I don't 
know any dowsers, so I would have to use regular people. My kids are looking 
forward to doing this. I was thinking of carefully replacing the turf and 
using a leaf covered area. You read my mind (!), I was going to put the 
Odessa in a plastic bag. I didn't think the bag would effect any 
electromagnetic charge disturbance or whatever it is the magnetite or the 
unknown brain molecules would be detecting and translating into a motor 
response causing the rods to cross.

The soil around here is pretty damp this time of year, I would hesitate to 
bury any iron meteorite for very long. I wouldn't have to go far to find 
drier sandy soil though. I have access to Campos and Muonionalustas, (both 
known rusters), Gibeons, Canyon Diablos, a mostly iron Seymchan and a few 
other large irons. Probably the Gibeon would be best. I like your idea of 
using anthropogenic metals as an independent variable.

Not that I believe in dowsing, this will be a fun experiment and video for 
the kids. I do however believe there are real phenomena that no one can 
explain, e.g. hypnotism and it's all to easy to naysay with a closed mind.

Thanks for the ideas.

Phil Whitmer

--------------------------------------

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

>

> ---------------------------