Fact check: Dowsing

1. Summary of the results

The scientific consensus strongly indicates that dowsing is not a reliable method for detecting buried objects or water. While one research paper claims to have found repeatable patterns in detecting various materials up to 20 meters away ^[1], multiple controlled experiments have demonstrated that dowsers perform no better than random chance when their prior geographical knowledge is eliminated ^{[2] [3]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several important contextual elements need to be considered:

• The Mechanism Behind Dowsing Movements: Rather than supernatural forces, dowsing tools function by amplifying small, unconscious hand movements, known as the ideomotor effect ^{[2] [3]}.
• Environmental Awareness: Any apparent success in dowsing may be attributed to the dowser's unconscious knowledge of environmental clues and geographical features ^{[2] [2]}.
• Scientific Testing: The Scheunen trials, which represent significant controlled testing of dowsing, conclusively showed that dowsers cannot perform better than random chance ^[3].
• Historical Context: Dowsing has been consistently classified as a pseudoscience throughout scientific literature ^[4].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

Several competing interests are at play in the dowsing debate:

• Military and Humanitarian Organizations: Some researchers suggest potential applications in demining efforts, which could attract funding and resources for further research ^[1].
• Scientific Community: The overwhelming majority of the scientific community has rejected dowsing's validity, based on controlled experimental evidence ^[4].
• Confirmation Bias: Apparent successes in dowsing are likely influenced by confirmation bias, where successful attempts are remembered while failures are forgotten ^[3].

The contrast between the single supportive study ^[1] and the broader scientific consensus ^{[3] [4]} suggests that isolated positive results should be viewed with significant skepticism when compared to the larger body of controlled experimental evidence.