# Can ghosts be scientifically proved to exist?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [September 30, 2004, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917 "2004-09-30T20:25:58Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 14
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/261 "2004-10-12T15:00:47Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#):
>
> I like to consider myself as one of the more fair-minded and level-headed members here, **Peter**. I think you would test the patience of a saint.
You? fair-minded? it is to laugh.
> [@](#):
>
> Your “application” was to prove something Randi said was incorrect (which it might well have been), **not for the $1M prize for evidence of dowsing ability**. You did not “apply”, you jerked him around.
No, I accepted the challenge he made. He then backed out of his own challenge. the fact is, he was doing the jerking around.
> [@](#):
>
> **WHY** is the “soil in 10 boxes” test an **UNFAIR** test for **DOWSING ABILITY**?
Because I wasn’t CLAIMING dowsing ability. Randi sdistorted my claim out of all proportion. He turned it into something fundametally different from the claim I made.
I told him from the start this was a disagreement about science, and not a claim of dowsing ability. I think water is rare and hard to find. He has spent decades attacking this notion. I expressed willingness to take his test to show the rightness of my notion. And he changed the claim I made, by offering to test my dowsing skills.
That’s the way he works.
> [@](#):
>
> Please give it again here, for completeness.
I gave it in my last post in this thread. This could go on for ever, folks:
**SM** Tell me what paranormal power you have.
**Peter** I’m not claiming paranormal ability, I’m just showing what a fool Randi is for issuing the challenge, and how dishonest he is for backing out.
**SM** I asked a question but you gave no answer. No answer at all. ha ha ha. Tell me what paranormal power you have.
**Peter** I’m not claiming paranormal ability, I’m just showing what a fool Randi is for issuing the challenge, and how dishonest he is for backing out.
**SM** Peter is claiming some paranormal power but won’t say what it is. I keep assking him but he won’t answer. He hasn’t given any answer. What is the paranormal power you claim to have.
**Peter** I’m not claiming paranormal ability, I’m just showing what a fool Randi is for issuing the challenge, and how dishonest he is for backing out.
etc, etc, etc.
> [@](#):
>
> Please cite the exact quotation, including the context. Every quote you have ever offered is him saying it is better than finding water, with no mention of whether it is a sufficient test for PARANORMAL bility.
[Randi spake thus:](http://www.skeptic.com/01.1.randi-paranormal.html)
\*\*I challenge all the dowsers in a similar way. Since 94 percent of the Earth’s surface has water within drillable distance my challenge is to find a dry spot! They don’t want to do it. Why? Because they only have a six percent chance of success.
\*\*
There you are, HIS design of a test for paranormal ability. The way he ALWAYS offers to test dowsers (allegedly.)
He says things like this frequently. He has made many similar statements over several decades. This is not an offhand remark, carelessly made, but a central pillar in his attacks on dowsers. And it is a pack of lies.
First Randi lie: the declaration that water is everywhere, and easy to find. Not so, say the geologists I consulted. Underground water is hard to find, they say. Drill anywhere at random, your chance of hitting a dry spot is far in excess of 6%.
Second Randi lie: Randi tells of offering this test to dowsers, and them refusing. But this is a fiction. When I corresponded with him, he admitted that this was just a “figure of speech”, he had in fact never asked an applicant to do this. When I told him that I was willing to take the test that he designed and offered, he backed out. He is the one that ‘doesn’t want to.’
I think he knows just how wrong his statement is. But he keeps making it, because it’s a great tale that always impresses an audience of skeptics, who will accept his word without question.
Of course, you cannot accept that your hero is a liar. Rather than accept that Randi is a fraud for issuing this challenge, you blame me. it always was a bogus challenge, and he never intended to honour it. I accepted his challenge, and watched him squirm on his own hook. Somehow, in your mind pointing out Randi’s lies makes me dishonest and him a hero.
---
### Author:  [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/262 "2004-10-12T15:31:05Z")
**Peter, Peter, Peter**. I have said _all along_ that Randi might well be **wrong** in that particular sentence. The figure 94% might well be wrong, the ‘drillable distance’ is utterly variable, it might even be the case that, as you say, a dry spot _is_ more difficult to find than a wet one.
**But if you think that “my challenge” in that sentence refers to the $1M challenge, you are simply being utterly, maddeningly obtuse.**
This entire Quixotic crusade appears to end happily ever after with Randi retracting that particular example of hyperbole and saying “OK, pedant, you win. The chance of finding a dry spot might well be less than 6/100. It was just a figure of speech”.
_Like he has done._ You called him out on it, and you convinced me (and, I think, him.) You _won_, **Peter**! You and Sancho can return home. But the test for dowsing ability is still **entirely fair** and **universally failed**. There is no _fraud_ in the test.
Incidentally, I note that that reference is 12 years old. Does he still make the 94%/dry-spot-more-difficult claim in his speeches and articles? If he did, I would indeed think slightly less of him. However, considering the **complete** frauds he’s up against, I might understand a little rhetorical hyperbole on his part.
---
### Author:  [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/263 "2004-10-12T16:22:45Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#):
>
> I told him from the start this was a disagreement about science, and not a claim of dowsing ability. I think water is rare and hard to find. He has spent decades attacking this notion. I expressed willingness to take his test to show the rightness of my notion. And he changed the claim I made, by offering to test my dowsing skills.
So you don’t want to accept Randi’s Challenge, you want to debate whether his statistics are right or wrong. Fine. You may have won that argument, but it has nothing to do with the $1M Challenge. It still stands and is still available to any applicant who can properly specify what he intends to prove as a paranormal power.
The [$1M Challenge](http://randi.org/research/challenge.html) is not to debate, but show what you can do. It says quite clearly, “We have no interest in theories or explanations of how the claimed powers might work.” If he “changed the claim” you made, maybe it was because your claim wasn’t appropriate? Offering to test your dowsing skills _is_.
If you wish to “defeat” the Challenge, yet don’t feel you have the power within yourself, perhaps you need to find something or someone who does. Arguing how correct Randi is does not weaken his point nor strengthen yours. And it tends to make you look just a little whiny, don’t ya think?
Meanwhile, anybody seen a ghost?
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/264 "2004-10-12T16:58:52Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#):
>
> **Peter, Peter, Peter**. I have said _all along_ that Randi might well be **wrong** in that particular sentence. The figure 94% might well be wrong, the ‘drillable distance’ is utterly variable, it might even be the case that, as you say, a dry spot _is_ more difficult to find than a wet one.
>
> **But if you think that “my challenge” in that sentence refers to the $1M challenge, you are simply being utterly, maddeningly obtuse.**
That particular statement was made, I believe, before the $1M challenge. I think it was $10,000 then.
Since then, he has made numerous similar statements that certainly do refer to the $1M.
> [@](#):
>
> This entire Quixotic crusade appears to end happily ever after with Randi retracting that particular example of hyperbole and saying “OK, pedant, you win. The chance of finding a dry spot might well be less than 6/100. It was just a figure of speech”.
Wrong again. He never admitted his error. Far from it. He accused me of “making excuses” when I rejected his offer of a dowsing test. He treats my rejection of his games as a vindication of his statements, and proof that I know I’m wrong, and am unwilling to back up my claims.
> [@](#):
>
> _Like he has done._ You called him out on it, and you convinced me (and, I think, him.) You _won_, **Peter**! You and Sancho can return home. But the test for dowsing ability is still **entirely fair** and **universally failed**. There is no _fraud_ in the test.
No, this shows how fraudulent he is. I approached him with a particular claim, he twisted it around and offered to test a totally different claim. The test he offered was inappropriate to my claim and unfair, but he tried to railroad me into accepting it. This is the way he works.
Somebody wishing to demonstrate ability as a dowser, mind reader, or fortune teller would run into the same behaviour.
> [@](#):
>
> Incidentally, I note that that reference is 12 years old. Does he still make the 94%/dry-spot-more-difficult claim in his speeches and articles? If he did, I would indeed think slightly less of him. However, considering the **complete** frauds he’s up against, I might understand a little rhetorical hyperbole on his part.
[Here’s](http://www.ncas.org/pdf/vol.15.1.pdf) one from last year.
**Ninety percent of the surface of the earth has water within drillable distance, so I would like someone to find me that DRY spot.**
I have little doubt that he’s going to keep spouting this nonsense until his dying day. He’s certainly been doing it for over 20 years.
---
### Author:  [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/265 "2004-10-12T17:51:55Z")
**Peter Morris,** you seem to be unhappy with the claim that 94% or even 90% of the earth’s dry land surface has drillable water beneath it. But obviously the correct number must be greater than zero, right? What do you believe that number should be, and on what do you base this assertion?
And this relates to ghosts how? Why not start your own thread on this topic (again)?
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/266 "2004-10-12T18:28:46Z")
> [@Musicat](#):
>
> **Peter Morris,** you seem to be unhappy with the claim that 94% or even 90% of the earth’s dry land surface has drillable water beneath it. But obviously the correct number must be greater than zero, right? What do you believe that number should be, and on what do you base this assertion?
The expert geologists I asked about this were unable to put a figure on it. This is unknown. But all were in agreement that Randi’s figure is nonsense. And they were sarcastic about the way his figure changes from article to article.
> [@](#):
>
> And this relates to ghosts how? Why not start your own thread on this topic (again)?
Way back several pages ago somebody raised the canard that if ghosts exist Randi will pay out $1M for proof. No claim for the prize means proof there are no ghosts, say the Randi fans. I just show that Randi’s offer is a fraud, not taking his test, or taking and failing is meaningless. Even a true claim will be rejected by Randi. Randi’s unclaimed prize means nothing, about ghosts or any other claimed phenomena.
---
### Author:  [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/267 "2004-10-12T18:33:33Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Since then, he has made numerous similar statements that certainly do refer to the $1M.
Are you sure?
I advise you, as I advise everyone here, to read [that essay](http://www.skeptic.com/01.1.randi-paranormal.html) you cited again. I find it difficult to believe that anyone could think he is referring to the **prize** challenge there, _precisely because of_ what you are saying about it being possible to achieve by normal means.
> [@](#):
>
> He accused me of “making excuses” when I rejected his offer of a dowsing test.
This is because he, perfectly understandably in my view, thinks you are _talking about_ the prize for demonstrating dowsing ability. If you said to him “I accept your dowsing challenge”, he surely could not foretell that you meant the _figure of speech_ he used in a single paragraph of a long essay.
> [@](#):
>
> I approached him with a particular claim, he twisted it around and offered to test a totally different claim.
Your claim was, to him, **irrelevant pedantry**. Like I said in the other thread, **Peter** , the challenge is not to prove that something Randi has said is _wrong_. You are picking up a single, ill-advised (with people like you around) use of the word “challenge” which you are interpreting obtusely.
> [@](#):
>
> Somebody wishing to demonstrate ability as a dowser, mind reader, or fortune teller would run into the same behaviour.
You don’t think they would be presented with a _fair test of paranormal ability which eradicated luck and cheating?_ This seems to be exactly what he presented to you.
> [@](#):
>
> one from last year:
> Ninety percent of the surface of the earth has water within drillable distance, so I would like someone to find me that DRY spot.
Ah, but there’s no _challenge_ here - he would merely “like it”. Perhaps the way he _next_ phrases his rhetoric might even satisfy the most obtuse pedant. We shall see.
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/268 "2004-10-12T18:58:06Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#):
>
> I like to consider myself as one of the more fair-minded and level-headed members here, **Peter**. I think you would test the patience of a saint.
```
:rolleyes:
```
> [@SentientMeat](#):
>
> **WHY** is the “soil in 10 boxes” test an **UNFAIR** test for **DOWSING ABILITY**?
Let’s be accurate here. The test was soil in 10 plastic containers. If there _is_ some sort of dowsing effect, where water can be detected in soil, it must first be determined if plastic (which is, after all, waterproof!) will have some negative effect on the results. Randi was changing the terms of the test, possibly significantly.
In the famed Targ & Puthoff tests of Uri Geller, Geller was able to reproduce a target picture while inside a shielded room _when one of the persons who had previously seen the target was also in the room,_ but not when there was no one present in the room who knew the target. Evidently they were trying to test for remote viewing rather than mind reading.
Why should we assume that paranormal phenomenon can transcend everything? It’s more likely that we are dealing with not ‘magic,’ but some variation of a very normal and natural process that we have as yet been unable to measure.
> [@SentientMeat](#):
>
> I can assure you that if you “show a ghost in a laboratory” (_ie._ repeateably reproduce inexplicable external, objectively observable physical phenomena consistent with an invisible consciousness in a cheat-proof environment) you will get a Nobel Prize for physics, let alone $1M.
So then, \*\*\*who needs “The Amazing Randi?” \*\* \* What good is he for besides making both believers _and_ skeptics look like fools?
> [@SentientMeat](#):
>
> Is there a word for misspelling “incompetence”?
No, but there is a word for pointing out spelling or typing errors and trying to use them to discredit someone. However, I can’t use it in Great Debates.
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/269 "2004-10-12T19:03:11Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#):
>
> Are you sure?
>
> I advise you, as I advise everyone here, to read [that essay](http://www.skeptic.com/01.1.randi-paranormal.html) you cited again. I find it difficult to believe that anyone could think he is referring to the **prize** challenge there, _precisely because of_ what you are saying about it being possible to achieve by normal means.
Plainly, that is the exact opposite of what he said. He claimed that finding dry spots is hard and thus a good test of dowsing ability. The fact is, he does not recognise how easy it is to find dry spots.
[quote]
This is because he, perfectly understandably in my view, thinks you are _talking about_ the prize for demonstrating dowsing ability.
[quote]
I told him that I had consultefd geologists, and they had informed me that almost everywhere is “dry.” A simple direct statement. The dowsing stuff was his own imagination.
> [@](#):
>
> If you said to him “I accept your dowsing challenge”, he surely could not foretell that you meant the _figure of speech_ he used in a single paragraph of a long essay.
He has made the same challenge many many times going back at least 20 years. This isn’t a “figure of speech” it’s a central pillar in his attacks on dowsers. He has used this bogus claim to discredit dowsers, with a phony tale of offering it to dowsers, and they refuse to take it. Calling it a “figure of speech” is a pathetic attempt to weasel out of the challenge that he issued repeatedly.
> [@](#):
>
> Your claim was, to him, **irrelevant pedantry**. Like I said in the other thread, **Peter** , the challenge is not to prove that something Randi has said is _wrong_.
Its to show that something that Randi denies is actually true. Frequently it involves scientific disputes. People making statements about science that Randi disputes are challenged to prove them, and offered $1M for doing so. They are not all ‘magic powers.’
> [@](#):
>
> You are picking up a single, ill-advised (with people like you around) use of the word “challenge” which you are interpreting obtusely.
No, if it was a single time I’d agree with you. But he has issued the “find me a dry spot” challenge over and over, going back several decades. This was not a single offhand remark, it’s a central pillar of his argument.
> [@](#):
>
> You don’t think they would be presented with a _fair test of paranormal ability which eradicated luck and cheating?_ This seems to be exactly what he presented to you.
No,he ignored the claim I made, invented things I’d never said, and refused to perform the test he challenged people to take.
> [@](#):
>
> Ah, but there’s no _challenge_ here - he would merely “like it”. Perhaps the way he _next_ phrases his rhetoric might even satisfy the most obtuse pedant. We shall see.
It would seem to satisfy obtuse pedants already.
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/270 "2004-10-12T19:04:24Z")
> [@Musicat](#):
>
> Meanwhile, anybody seen a ghost?
Well, I ‘heard’ two of them, does that count?
---
### Author:  [@ElectricZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElectricZ)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/271 "2004-10-12T19:17:15Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#):
>
> First Randi lie: the declaration that water is everywhere, and easy to find. Not so, say the geologists I consulted. Underground water is hard to find, they say. Drill anywhere at random, your chance of hitting a dry spot is far in excess of 6%.
Not sure what the debate is here (I jumped to the end of this discussion that was about ghosts on page 1) but according to the US Geological Survey:
> [@](#):
>
> Ground water occurs almost everywhere beneath the land surface. The widespread occurrence of potable ground water is the reason that it is used as a source of water supply by about one-half the population of the United States, including almost all of the population that is served by domestic water-supply systems.
[http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/circ1186/index.html](http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/circ1186/index.html) - everything you’d ever want to know about groundwater.
The USGS backs up Randi’s claim that water exists within a drillable distance from the surface. The USGS is a pretty reliable source for such information. That being the case, I could make the claim to be able to detect drillable water almost anywhere and be correct about it. This doesn’t disprove dowsing ability, but it does mean that wherever my rods happen to cross, you could strike water if you drill deep enough. Even if it were 200 feet down I could still make the claim it’s possible to drill that deep and that I was right. If I were a legitimate dowser, I would want to eliminate every possible excuse or condition that could be interpreted as luck to separate myself from the charlatans. (And you have to agree, such dishonest people exist.)
So in order to test my claim, you’d have to first figure out if my detection abilities account for depth. For example, if I were tested while sitting on a boat on a lake, could I tell if a container held water by dowsing with the lake 2 feet below the deck? If there is groundwater under most of the surface (as indicated by the USGS), can I detect water 10 feet down even if there’s a sea of water 100 feet down? Could I detect water in a bucket if there’s water 10 feet beneath it? Would the only way to test it be to climb in a hot air balloon with 10 containers and discover which 5 held water?
I don’t know enough about your dealings with Randi to comment, but I do know that there are thousands of universities and non-profit groups out there who could properly test such abilities… Certainly they could be used to benefit society if making money wasn’t an attractive motive.
EZ
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/272 "2004-10-12T19:21:39Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#):
>
> Incidentally, I note that that reference is 12 years old. Does he still make the 94%/dry-spot-more-difficult claim in his speeches and articles? If he did, I would indeed think slightly less of him. However, considering the **complete** frauds he’s up against, I might understand a little rhetorical hyperbole on his part.
“The Amazing Randi” claims that most of the people he tests are not frauds, but that they genuinely believe in their abilities.
Skeptical Eye Vol. 15, No. 1 2003
> [@](#):
>
> Randi first encountered the whole phe-nomenon of dowsing and wrote about it in his book, Flim-Flam!. For the most part, he be-lieves that dowsers are basically honest but deluded people.
> {… two examples deleted for space concerns …}
> Other than these two examples of cheat-ing dowsers, “No other dowsers have I found trying to cheat,” says Randi.
For sake of accuracy and reduction of name-calling.
🆒
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/273 "2004-10-12T19:30:22Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#):
>
> Ah, but there’s no _challenge_ here - he would merely “like it”. Perhaps the way he _next_ phrases his rhetoric might even satisfy the most obtuse pedant. We shall see.
It’s amazing to see the extremes that True Believers will go to in order to defend their Holy Personages.
**Meat,** you crawled out on a limb with this one.
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/274 "2004-10-12T19:48:58Z")
> [@ElectricZ](#):
>
> So in order to test my claim, you’d have to first figure out if my detection abilities account for depth. For example, if I were tested while sitting on a boat on a lake, could I tell if a container held water by dowsing with the lake 2 feet below the deck? If there is groundwater under most of the surface (as indicated by the USGS), can I detect water 10 feet down even if there’s a sea of water 100 feet down? Could I detect water in a bucket if there’s water 10 feet beneath it? Would the only way to test it be to climb in a hot air balloon with 10 containers and discover which 5 held water?
Good point, **EZ**. Until we know more about what factors are involved, pretty much any test would be meaningless, to wit:
**TAR:** “OK for today’s test we have ten plastic containers. One is full of dry soil, and the other nine contain wet soil. Your challenge is to find the dry soil!”
He then places the ten containers down on the floor, right above (choose one):
[ul]
[li]a deep underground water supply[/li][li]the water pipes in his studio[/li][li]the downstairs bathroom[/li][li]an underground sewer[/li][/ul]
If it’s true that the surface of the Earth has a high percentage of underground water, you’d first have to find a dry spot to ensure a fair test!
**S[sup]~\<[/sup]**
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/275 "2004-10-12T20:19:33Z")
> [@ElectricZ](#):
>
> Not sure what the debate is here (I jumped to the end of this discussion that was about ghosts on page 1) but according to the US Geological Survey:
>
> [Circular 1186](http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/circ1186/index.html) - everything you’d ever want to know about groundwater.
>
> The USGS backs up Randi’s claim that water exists within a drillable distance from the surface. The USGS is a pretty reliable source for such information. That being the case, I could make the claim to be able to detect drillable water almost anywhere and be correct about it.
From the same website
[http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/circ1186/html/gen\_facts.html](http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/circ1186/html/gen_facts.html)
“Water beneath the land surface occurs in two principal zones, the unsaturated zone and the saturated zone. In the unsaturated zone, the spaces between particle grains and the cracks in rocks contain both air and water. Although a considerable amount of water can be present in the unsaturated zone,\*\* this water cannot be pumped by wells \*\* because capillary forces hold it too tightly.”
You get the point here? If you sink a well into such a location, NO WATER COMES OUT. That is a “dry spot” to all intents and purposes.
I discussed with my qualified advisors precisely what a “dry spot” would be, they told me about such structures as described above and said that would be “dry” in geological terms. And that random drilling without a proper survey is likely to hit such a structure that holds water and doesn’t release it.
Also, there is a difference between ‘location’ and ‘spot.’
If a farmer needs a water supply on his land. Taken _as a whole_ his farm probably has water underneath it. But individual spots on that land yield vastly different quantities of water. Find the ideal spot for a well, you might get several hundred gallons per minute. Go to another spot, just a few metres away, you get nothing at all. See [url=http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=l9Qsa.12706%243n5.9208%[40news2.central.cox.net](http://40news2.central.cox.net)&rnum=1&prev=/%20groups%3Fq%3Dg:thl1792531788d%26dq%3D%26hl%3Den%26%3Cbr%20/%3Elr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26selm%3Dl9Qsa.12706%25243n5.9208%[2540news2.central.cox.net](http://2540news2.central.cox.net)]here for a geologist’s comments on Randi’s claims.
The idea that you can drill anywhere and expect to find vast quantities of water is certainly wrong.
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/276 "2004-10-12T20:25:19Z")
Sorry, see [here](http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=l9Qsa.12706%243n5.9208%40news2.central.cox.net&rnum=1&prev=/%20groups%3Fq%3Dg:thl1792531788d%26dq%3D%26hl%3Den%26%3Cbr%20/%3Elr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26selm%3Dl9Qsa.12706%25243n5.9208%2540news2.central.cox.net) for geologists comments.
---
### Author:  [@ElectricZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElectricZ)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/277 "2004-10-12T20:58:11Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#):
>
> I discussed with my qualified advisors precisely what a “dry spot” would be, they told me about such structures as described above and said that would be “dry” in geological terms. And that random drilling without a proper survey is likely to hit such a structure that holds water and doesn’t release it.
Still and all, I’d want to know what amount of water is detectable, and at what depth. Could you tell if there were multiple layers of water? Is pumpable water all that makes the rods cross, or would moisture do it? For example, if you watered one plant out of 10, could you reliably detect which one was watered? Or does the water actually have to be in “pumpable” form?
Would you have to conduct a test over one of these “dry” areas that your qualified advisors told you about to get a reliable reading?
Could you make a dowsing machine? A cart that holds the two rods, or does a human have to hold them? Can any person act as a dowser? A human body is mostly water, for that matter. Could a dowsing rod be used to detect if a box was empty or held a person? Woe, there are dozens of practical applications for which dowsing would be perfect.
But these are the kinds of questions that skeptics need to have answered. If you can’t account for the above, dowsing and other similar disciplines can never be taken seriously. I just read a story about how dogs might be used to detect cancer in people. That’s a pretty weird statement, don’t you think? If you thought you might have cancer, and your doctor brought in a dog to sniff your urine, what would your reaction be?
Well, if the doctor was able to point you to medical trials where the dogs had an 85% success rate, you might give it a shot. If, ten years down the roads, doctors have been dog-scanning urine and it’s saved thousands of lives by early detection, you’d be asking for the Lab Test (no pun intended) the second you walked in the door. But until it’s proven, you’d be a fool to bet your life on it.
Nobody’s life is at stake with dowsing, but it’s as fantastic a claim as cancer-sniffing dogs until you get some numbers to back it up. The medical world is putting the dogs to the test as we speak. So why shouldn’t the dowsers go through the motions of proof like anybody else?
EZ
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/278 "2004-10-12T21:12:08Z")
> [@ElectricZ](#):
>
> Still and all, I’d want to know what amount of water is detectable, and at what depth. Could you tell if there were multiple layers of water? Is pumpable water all that makes the rods cross, or would moisture do it? For example, if you watered one plant out of 10, could you reliably detect which one was watered? Or does the water actually have to be in “pumpable” form?
I repeat, I’m not a dowser. I’m just commenting on various bits of misinformation supplied by James Randi with such regularity.
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/279 "2004-10-12T21:18:55Z")
> [@ElectricZ](#):
>
> Could you make a dowsing machine? A cart that holds the two rods, or does a human have to hold them? Can any person act as a dowser? A human body is mostly water, for that matter. Could a dowsing rod be used to detect if a box was empty or held a person? Woe, there are dozens of practical applications for which dowsing would be perfect.
>
> EZ
The usual claim made by dowsers that I have read is that water somehow causes their hand to twitch, and the rods magnify the twitch and make it more easily seen.
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/280 "2004-10-12T21:23:09Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#):
>
> Sorry, see [here](http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=l9Qsa.12706%243n5.9208%40news2.central.cox.net&rnum=1&prev=/%20groups%3Fq%3Dg:thl1792531788d%26dq%3D%26hl%3Den%26%3Cbr%20/%3Elr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26selm%3Dl9Qsa.12706%25243n5.9208%2540news2.central.cox.net) for geologists comments.
Oh. Yah. Real support for you there:
> [@](#):
>
> It means that (a) dowsers believe that water flows in ‘underground
> rivers’, and (b) the writer of the sentence agrees that this concept is
> wrong (i.e. “sheer fiction”) and has no geological evidence to support it.
>
> \> Is it true?
>
> Except for a few circumstances where streams and rivers _can_ flow
> underground though limestone in karst country (where they have
> carved/dissolved cracks and caverns as channels thru the rock and flow
> thru these openings), underground water is NOT found flowing as
> “rivers”. It is found in the spaces between the particles that make up
> the soil or the rocks, filling in the space and flowing very slowly
> around the grains of rock. This is referred to as pore space, and
> porosity is the term used to tell what percentage of the material is
> open pore space. The porosity differs based on the size of the grains
> and the degree of sorting (i.e. - whether there is a mixture of large
> and small grains, or the grains are all roughly the same size).
>
> There is more pore space, thus more water available, in sands and
> gravels than there is in silty fine-grained sediments. Since there is
> more open pore space to hold water, there is also less resistance to
> flow and the water will travel faster through these materials. You tend
> to find sands and gravels in old stream beds that have been buried, so
> you _do_ find water flowing faster and in greater quantities through old
> buried rivers than through the surrounding materials, but it still
> doesn’t count as an “underground river”.
>
> \<…\>
>
> Who knows? True, you can find _some_ water most anywhere, if you drill
> deep enough and don’t need much water. Does a gallon per minute count?
> We have wells supplying farms around here with 10-15 gpm flow rates.
> We have other wells supplying irrigation water with 2000 gpm rates, from
> different depths and tapping different geological units.
:rolleyes:
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917.md?page=13)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917.md?page=15)