SOME TESTS OF WATER A CRITICISM.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20624, 13 August 1932, Page 14

SOME TESTS OF WATER A CRITICISM.

In an article oxceedingly moderate ir. tone Dr. HUgendorf has again returned to his attack on the belief in water divining, and comes to the conclusion that "the turning of the rod cannot be explained by the action of underground water." I would like first to make three or four general criticisms on the reasoning that has led hira to arrive at this conclusion: (a) his generalisation is based on too few jnwnces; (b) be recognises but does not give full value to the human factors involved; (c) he ignores compjetely the evidence of other scientific men; (d) his standard of evidence is far too low and his own records very incomplete. Teste a»d Besuite. It is quite impossible in a brief article such as this to expose adequately the weaknesses of Dr. Hilgendorfe position. One can only deal with the subject incidentally; not systematicaljv. The central point in Dr. Hilgendorf's method is the blindfolding of the dowser, when be passes over the ground a seeond time. From other purees we know that both blindfeldisf and leading—if this w done—tend to disturb the state, more or less com* pjete, of abstraction, bordering on expectant attention, which is necessary tefore the diviner can carry on his work. However, let that pass. Five water diviners were tested by Dr. HUgendorf, and in each case when blindfolded "he [the water diviner] now marked the stream in some other position than that in which he bad previously located it, and walked over the whole—once only part—of the firstfound stream, without any reaction." Hence Dr. HUgendorf comes to the conclusion given above., and says, "If water makes the rod turn onee, it surely must do so again." Here of course Dr. HUgWorf neglects the human element. He not dealing with mechanisms alone. However, the chief and fatal flaw in his reasoning is due to the fact that he does not Hem to have sunk wells at the point* indicated by the dowsers. He might eonv taivably have found water at all tke spots pointed out, bqth on, the first and second trials. The fact that those marked in the first trial were passed over in the second certainly shows the unreliabUity of human testimony, but does not without the sinking of wells show that the results-were altogether negative. It is presumptive, not in» escapable, evidence of the abfenee of water. In any ease it is an attempt to prove a negative. Let use give bare as a contrary example one well-reeorded ease of the same type where the results were positive. Dr. TbouveneJ investigated the*case of the famous French dowser Bleton. Here is a quotation from his work on the subject: I conducted Bleton to places which he had never seenj I took W» towards springs of which I knew, but of whieh be could not know; at other times over ground where neither of us knew what might be found, Whenever ho experienced peculiar sensation*-.-and whenever the baguette [divining rod] repeatedly turned at the same spoWl led hi» far away, bringing him baek. by quite different reads, etui with hia eyes bandaged. . . , When he kad followed the eourse of m uniergronM •priM—sometimes for more than quarter ff * wile, across bills, reek, er ferei**, and indicated on the way numerous subdivisions of the same sprin»~-J made him return, He then re»eon4u«ted m« himself, though still blindfolded, only supported by one arm, to the point from which we set out, without straying a single step from the line previously traced ana marked by pegs which were often hidden beneath the surface. He found all the subterranean rivulets, and followed exactly the sinuosities of the underground stream,

Jlr, Tbouvfoe! here weonaJa method* that he need to deceive Bleton, then says: "In fine I tried in all aorta of ways to Receive him, md I «W testily that in more than six bwndred trials I did not succeed in doing ao one single time." Now Pr. must either admit that tbis eaae pfflseta bis own evidence, or be must questi«to the facts and the authenticity of the documents. Yet I readUy agree that human testimony is so wreUnWe th*t one case, however well recorded and documented, would be ipanfflcient to prove the phenomenon \ bnt marjy more cases even better recorded and doeqmented can be brought forward, and then the cumulative evidence becomes very strong.

BvWtnw for tfca Powaw. Dr» Hilgendorfs descriptions are bo jwperfect that we cannot arrive at any conclusions. Reports of engineers and, geologists, plans, statements wade by the dowsers, and precautions taken to prevent them from getting outside jn r formation, results of wellrsinkjng aad many other matters on which informar tion is needful, ar» ajl lacing, p u t let us at least grant tbia—though we are not justified in so Dr Hilgendorf has shown that the indications given in his experiments were contradictory. Well, the caw is not finished. The evidence is negative, Pr. Hilgendorf has still to fa*e well-

(naeuixT warrror »oa ncs nasi.) [By Bobt. M. Laxko.]

! recorded eases in favev •# divining, analyse them in #■*'££ and show where the flaw jntLtS mony is. Not fifty qoz thJSLy. well-observed examples ef (LfSN of the water finder the power did not exist of well-attested and well-McaJd-to.the contrary. The W&raham Lodge <Jta|; '. One such case out of hwjflSbj able to me I shall qwtjjTjgH course I cannot give it ja jfflp all the documentary evid^'s&f sibly it will be complete purposes. Then I shal] to put Lis finger on the the story, if there be one '!JJ!* The ebief protagonist of deadfeEngland was Sir F.R.S., formerly Profenpr of-jE at Dublin. The standard Vttfily subject in English is fh« by Sir Wj|}iam Barrett M4f£B Bestermann. The ease J am-ymf quote from it is known pa tfejOl Experiment Sir Henry ffirifffS owner of Waruham Ledge SISS Susses, found that ha fcajSß sufficient supply of W|tff*«U property, lit obtained *ettj§if gineers and geologist* s3Bll don to give him Mvte'WJ§j, ! to sink wells. taiqed and three wells sunt ]lt|jL nels were driven ip Over £IOOO was spent, wit£sSl factory results. As a last nmjmL called in Mulling, the wteriSi Care was taken to promt win getting any local he had not been in that sfrt«§jjS before, Mulftw proposed tD|ej§§ the higher ground, M *aj experts had said it wouJd bjl§| However, be- persisted/ asd'lM top of the m tim rod tnro«*ijf oasJy. On the eresi of tkt'%' tanwdtffajp, stated stt£Sl point* marked were Mijjjil •Plinga. He indletted the 4ip6 32-15 feet. The first wells «p£ been to the depth of 85 and}!!* Muliins indicated positions other wells. After th*M : B feet of solid sandstone tf.W& two points indieated a Mpio#fg|| pf excellent water was these wells were onjytwenty ttmm ettenatTe tMneUiof and tmmahowed that Uiey yen <ptt<« pendent, The pUn show tbfipl at the biglwt point of the at as slevatwa ef eonß| tifli eoaf&ieii *-j^¥i'. l r" orthode*. to sm«p «i% out a idifk ttm tew.W Hfti| spots at wlka wat* was t».fe* {nfl indicated UPWfW-jtotff ffr VIMH water we»J4. bt mmy fMir mm tioaa being; elalmatftb/ dtaJriHH triumphantly Tta^faftjk:.. -. \:^m After studying umpei-ef W&mM one is loreed to nKffit thatrKaH of chance eoiaejelpija phenomena, tn4 §H ii wSm cautiously to state tW tte-MJHI ante of the favour of a battel (not" wieaw ") ef *l*ff#ffl||K aetuajly ejift. I'fWmMgmE thet H is » p)HHi & 'flfe£VHH 7 should Uke-« nmfffiHsi refer to one wn W was the suggested that fO*4 den« might be several dovaera to ground w& fey Well, as a knoek-OBt dorf now triump»*iHy fgsM harran well, at » qpftl/SPHI e#te4 bj three rnfff flffiH present used «a * nct»WlalM r.ibbjts. ! «m it stands ef thfl pogWW|B | Ifcgt second-hand »p4 given. We do not tWiMMO|B the water-finders WJfIffWWPI or whether the well was IBHH exact fpot and to tbe 4nHk.lM| sTow let 'me give esort trary ease. ShtnWifl, |4*J|»B wmM witer> fIW ( geolopjte, enfijiieTa; MH others set out to find it, TWUIHg agreed in their spot, and two as to other final result w»i that tin 'Mjmm twiee aj »n«Ji water «« while the geologist* got MMHI Heporte,. plans, p»p«f« «**J|H| wad this condensed aeeeant justice to the water,flndeff, remark, before I aw faiwM Ui|g»»4erl'a explanation ft;Wm kg ot the rt4 m thoroughly nnsatiffictoty. explanation was g4ven by astronomer I>alande, ffll MH The problem is an gyayeepa»g|HW one, whieh I cannot faWPBIB| Suflice it to say that % result of subconscious mnsgaMjißl responding to subconscioui After all, perhaps I have MifJH to show tnat belief is **t*|B| if not altogether a "silly ffjHfßJl