Editing Dowsing (section)

===Betz 1990 study===
In a 1987–88 study in [[Munich]] by [[Hans-Dieter Betz]] and other scientists, 500 dowsers were initially tested for their skill, and the experimenters selected the best 43 among them for further tests. Water was pumped through a pipe on the ground floor of a two-story barn. Before each test, the pipe was moved in a direction perpendicular to the water flow. On the upper floor, each dowser was asked to determine the position of the pipe. Over two years, the dowsers performed 843 such tests and, of the 43 pre-selected and extensively tested candidates, at least 37 showed no dowsing ability. The results from the remaining 6 were said to be better than chance, resulting in the experimenters' conclusion that some dowsers "in particular tasks, showed an extraordinarily high rate of success, which can scarcely if at all be explained as due to chance&nbsp;… a real core of dowser-phenomena can be regarded as empirically proven."<ref name="munich_study_quote">Wagner, H., H.-D. Betz, and H. L. König, 1990. Schlußbericht 01 KB8602, Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie. [http://www.csicop.org/si/show/testing_dowsing_the_failure_of_the_munich_experiments/ As quoted by Jim T. Enright] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140329205836/http://www.csicop.org/si/show/testing_dowsing_the_failure_of_the_munich_experiments/ |date=2014-03-29 }} in the ''[[Skeptical Inquirer]]''.</ref>

Five years after the Munich study was published, [[Jim T. Enright]], a professor of [[physiology]] who emphasized correct data analysis procedure, contended that the study's results are merely consistent with [[statistical fluctuations]] and not significant. He believed the experiments provided "the most convincing disproof imaginable that dowsers can do what they claim",<ref name="enright">{{cite web |url = http://www.csicop.org/si/show/testing_dowsing_the_failure_of_the_munich_experiments |title = The Failure of the Munich Experiments |access-date = 2006-11-14 |last = Enright |first = Jim T. |date = January–February 1999 |work = Skeptical Inquirer |publisher = CSICOP |quote = The researchers themselves concluded that the outcome unquestionably demonstrated successful dowsing abilities, but a thoughtful re-examination of the data indicates that such an interpretation can only be regarded as the result of wishful thinking. |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20091117185131/http://www.csicop.org/si/show/testing_dowsing_the_failure_of_the_munich_experiments/ |archive-date = 2009-11-17 |url-status = dead}}</ref> stating that the data analysis was "special, unconventional and customized". Replacing it with "more ordinary analyses",<ref name="enright1995">{{cite journal |last1 = Enright |first1 = J. T. |year = 1995 |title = Water dowsing: The Scheunen experiments |journal = Naturwissenschaften |volume = 82 |issue = 8| pages = 360–369 |doi=10.1007/s001140050198|doi-broken-date = 1 November 2024 }}</ref> he noted that the ''best'' dowser was on average {{convert|4|mm|in|2|sp=us|lk=on}} out of {{convert|10|m|ft|2|sp=us|lk=on}} closer to a mid-line guess, an advantage of 0.04%, and that the five other "good" dowsers were on average farther than a mid-line guess. Enright emphasized that the experimenters should have decided beforehand how to statistically analyze the results; if they only afterward chose the statistical analysis that showed the greatest success, then their conclusions would not be valid until replicated by another test analyzed by the same method. He further pointed out that the six "good" dowsers did not perform any better than chance in separate tests.<ref name="enright1996">{{cite journal |last=Enright |first=J. T. |date=June 1996 |title=Dowsers lost in a Barn |journal=Naturwissenschaften |publisher=Springer Berlin / Heidelberg |volume=83 |issue=6 |pages=275–277 |issn=1432-1904 |url=http://www.idt.mdh.se/kurser/ct3340/archives/ht05/assignment-2d-dowsing-articles/Articles%202-3-Betz-Enright.pdf |access-date=2009-09-26 |doi=10.1007/BF01149601 |bibcode=1996NW.....83..275E |s2cid=8201640 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120328103212/http://www.idt.mdh.se/kurser/ct3340/archives/ht05/assignment-2d-dowsing-articles/Articles%202-3-Betz-Enright.pdf |archive-date=2012-03-28 |url-status=dead}}</ref> Another study published in ''[[Pathophysiology (journal)|Pathophysiology]]'' hypothesized that such experiments as this one that were carried out in the twentieth century could have been interfered with by man-made radio frequency radiation, as test subjects' bodies absorbed the radio waves and unconscious hand movement reactions took place following the standing waves or intensity variations.<ref name="O54Fh">{{cite journal |title=Dowsing can be interfered with by radio frequency radiation |url=http://www.pathophysiologyjournal.com/article/S0928-4680(12)00039-9/pdf |journal=Pathophysiology |volume=19 |issue=2 |year=2012| pages=89–94 |vauthors=Huttunen P, Niinimaa A, Myllylä R |doi=10.1016/j.pathophys.2012.01.004 |pmid=22365422}}</ref>