# Does dowsing for water really work? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [March 19, 2003, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555 "2003-03-19T15:07:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/41 "2003-03-21T13:27:56Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m not saying dowsing doesn’t work, no-one here says that. Um, no-one? > [@](#): > > Needless to say, dowsing is entirely a fraud, although often an unconscious one - Cecil ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/42 "2003-03-21T13:39:33Z")
Kanicbird: OK, I don’t _think_ anyone here says that (and note that Cecil isn’t here). Cecil has to be rather more clear in his statements than we. I think dowsing is an unconscious fraud too, but it is (of course) impossible to prove, so I won’t go around saying I _know_ it is. No matter how many dowsers fail tests, there will always be one more who claims he is the real deal. The moment a dowser passes a double-blind test, I’m sure Cecil will be open to a revision of his opinion. Dowsing’s track record shows that that is unlikely to happen, though. You seem to cling to past mistakes scientists have made. You somewhat miss the point. Take homeopathy, for example. You say that one day we may be able to measure the vibrational energy in a homeopathic solution. That’s not the point. The point is that we do not need to know _how_ homeopathy works in order to know _that_ it works. And it doesn’t. Our understanding of gravity is incomplete as well, but that doesn’t mean gravity isn’t there. ---
**Author:** ![Philster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@Philster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philster)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/43 "2003-03-21T14:03:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr. Mook \* > \*\*Cecil said: > > “An experienced dowser, who has often picked up a fair bit of practical geological knowledge, particularly if he has worked in the same geographical area for many years, often develops a good instinct for judging where water might be just by looking at the terrain. When he walks around doing his number with the stick his mind unconsciously transmits this knowledge to his arm muscles, with predictable results.” > > To me this means dowsing does work, not in the sense that the stick is sensing water, \*\* Unfortunately, even experienced dowsers never do better than random chance when tested. Even their ‘skills’ don’t work. Nice try at SHOEHORNING. > **[Home](https://web.randi.org)** > > JREF ---
**Author:** ![Philster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@Philster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philster)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/44 "2003-03-21T14:08:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by control-z \* > \*\*Any average person who says dowsing works get’s immediately shot down by people wanting scientific proof. Well you’re not going to get any sort of scientific proof from me, I just thought I’d share an interesting experience. > > There are too many completely skeptical people here who don’t seem willing to try anything for themselves. The world isn’t all black and white, it’s shades of grey. How freakin’ hard is it to go outside and try it? That’s all I ask. \*\* Listen up, Mr. Close-Minded, calling someone a skeptic is a compliment, don’t try to use it back-handedly. Don’t waste our time, or Cecils, if you just discount out of hand any evidence. Evidence: tests, the effects that causes the rod to move, random chance, etc. ---
**Author:** ![PhilHibbs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bc8723/32.png) [@PhilHibbs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhilHibbs)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/45 "2003-03-21T14:30:17Z")
I have used L-shaped copper rods to find buried water pipes. Hold the short part of the rod with the long part as horizontal as you can, walk slowly, and the rods will cross over when you go over the pipe. My father was a physics teacher, and he taught me how to do it, although he couldn’t explain how it works. “It’s impossible, but it works” is what he used to say. He also explained that a scienties should always have an open mind, and always be prepared to question the established theory. It’s like electrophonic meteor sounds, a fizzing noise that apparently can be heard when a shooting star goes overhead. They are too far away to be heard, especially simultaneously with seeing them, but apparently long-wavelength EM can be converted to audio waves of the same frequency. Until you understand how it works, it’s impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/46 "2003-03-21T14:36:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by PhilHibbs \* > **I have used L-shaped copper rods to find buried water pipes. Hold the short part of the rod with the long part as horizontal as you can, walk slowly, and the rods will cross over when you go over the pipe. My father was a physics teacher, and he taught me how to do it, although he couldn’t explain how it works. “It’s impossible, but it works” is what he used to say. He also explained that a scienties should always have an open mind, and always be prepared to question the established theory.** These things are true (provided you mean “scientist”). But a scientist should also expect proof before he believes something, and expect evidence before throwing away an established theory. The current theory is that humanity was created through evolution, and if a guy walks in off the street and says he made it yesterday out of Play-Doh, I’m going to expect evidence. > [@](#): > > \*\*It’s like electrophonic meteor sounds, a fizzing noise that apparently can be heard when a shooting star goes overhead. They are too far away to be heard, especially simultaneously with seeing them, but apparently long-wavelength EM can be converted to audio waves of the same frequency. Until you understand how it works, it’s impossible. \*\* I haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about here or what you’re trying to achieve. Kindly follow the links provided and test your dowsing ability in similar, double-blind, tests. [http://www.randi.org/jr/062802.html](http://www.randi.org/jr/062802.html) [http://www.randi.org/jr/120701.html](http://www.randi.org/jr/120701.html) [http://www.randi.org/jr/08-20-2000.html](http://www.randi.org/jr/08-20-2000.html) [http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html](http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html) > **[Home](https://web.randi.org)** > > JREF ---
**Author:** ![SCSimmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e495f1/32.png) [@SCSimmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SCSimmons)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/47 "2003-03-21T15:22:05Z")
Science may change its facts and theories, but the processes of science are universal. And there really is a relevant comparison to the introduction of Galileo’s heliocentric theory, which is probably even better than the ‘flat earth’ example … > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by control-z \* > \*\*Well Cecil doesn’t know everything and James Raandi doesn’t know everything and I don’t know everything. I just know that it worked for me when I tried it, and it was almost alarming how much the rod pulled. I encourage everyone to just try it, it’s a very interesting experience regardless. \*\* Personal experience can be a very compelling thing, especially when such an obvious fact presents itself-“I _felt_ the stick being dragged down!” And one of the most obvious facts that presents itself to us is that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Go _look_-you can _see_ it doing this, every day! Which is irrelevant. What makes something scientific fact is that either there is a measurable, repeatable effect, or it is a consequence of an established theory; what makes something a scientific theory is that it makes measurable, testable predictions; and what makes a theory established is that its predictions have been thoroughly tested and confirmed as scientific facts. Galileo’s heliocentric system was a scientific theory; Newton’s theories incorporated Galileo’s system and has been thoroughly tested and established by experiment as true (as an approximation, anyway, in most circumstances). As a consequence of a well-established theory, that the Earth travels around the Sun and not vice-versa is also a scientific fact … So, a dowsing believer has to do one of two things: 1. Establish by experiment that dowsing works, _not_ by ‘going out and trying it’, but by setting up carefully controlled experiments to eliminate alternative causes for the perceived effect; or 2. Explain how dowsing _must_ work on the basis of a theory that has previously been established. It’s acceptable for something that has been theoretically proved as a consequence not to work. Anyone who has done physics or chemistry labs has experienced that. But with a _genuinely testable_, i.e. scientific, theory, the tester will be able to formulate and test hypotheses for why the test fails. Whenever would-be dowsers fail in controlled conditions, they end up ‘walking away shaking their heads’. The only time they ever get consistent, repeatable results are when the testing conditions are uncontrolled-not double-blind, no controls, etc. And what this means is that dowsing is not a scientific fact. Many years ago, I saw the ghost of my family’s recently departed dog. It was a very powerful experience, and left a lasting impression on me. And the effect on my belief in the existence of ghosts is zero. I have no way to test and rule out other explanations of my individual experience; and I and others have looked into related phenomena and found no testable facts. Maybe that’ll change someday, and humankind will be able to systematically investigate the attributes of ectoplasmic beings. But at present, there is absolutely no scientific evidence of such things, and I therefore believe that they don’t exist. That’s science. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/48 "2003-03-21T15:26:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by GusNSpot \* > **Now, I say I can find old water lines buried 3-6 inches under ground? Okay? So if you go bury 100 lines 40 feet long in a field or across a dirt road and then bring me blindfolded and point me down the road, how many lines do I have to correctly find to win? What percentage would take it out of the realm of chance in you opinion? Or does it only count if you ask me to fine lines 12 inches under the ground also? Or water flowing at 60 feet down?** I’m not a statistician but I’d say finding 80 should do it. If you’re referring to James Randi’s challenge then no, you will not be required to find lines 12 inches under the ground or water flowing 60 feet down. You will state what you think you can do, and you will be required to do exactly that. > [@](#): > > \*\*I make no claim about anything but ½" galvanized pipe aged 10 years and buried 3-6 inches under ground. Now with just that very specific condition, what would convince someone of the audience that I could do it? > > Must I use your wire or stick? Can I use mine? If I did get 100% of the pipes in this very selected test, would you, if you were in charge, give me the million? 90%? 80%? What do YOU call proof? \*\* You can use your own stick. I’d design the test thusly: We take ten flowerpots filled with dirt. Then we take a piece of ½" galvanized pipe aged 10 years and bury it in a randomly chosen flowerpot at a depth of 3-6 inches, with you present. You’re then allowed to calibrate your instrument and attempt to find this piece of pipe. We do this about 10 times, randomly choosing a new flowerpot each time, so that you are satisfied that the setup works, your powers are working and so on. Then you and I leave the room. A neutral third party (or one representative of yours and one of mine) enters the room, randomly chooses a flowerpot, buries the piece of pipe in that pot and leaves the room. You and I enter the room, without contact with the third party, and you attempt to find the pipe. We do this 10 times, secretly and randomly choosing a new flowerpot each time. Chance predicts you’ll find it 1 time out of 10. I’d require you to find it, say, eight times, in order for you to pass the test. That’s the way _I_ would do it, and obviously the entire setup and design would be there for you to accept or revise. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/49 "2003-03-21T15:34:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SCSimmons \* > \*\*So, a dowsing believer has to do one of two things: > > 1. Establish by experiment that dowsing works, _not_ by ‘going out and trying it’, but by setting up carefully controlled experiments to eliminate alternative causes for the perceived effect; > > or 2. Explain how dowsing _must_ work on the basis of a theory that has previously been established.\*\* While I agree with, and applaud, most of your post, I don’t agree with this. If an established theory says that dowsing must work, and it doesn’t, then the theory is wrong. There is only one thing the dowser can do to prove dowsing’s worth, and that’s number 1: controlled, double-blind experiments. ---
**Author:** ![control-z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@control-z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/control-z)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/50 "2003-03-21T15:55:28Z")
I’m not saying I have any magical dowsing talents. I don’t think the person has much to do with it other than walking slowly and holding the stick or rods. I believe there can be a scientific explaination for it. Something like this might be an interesting start to an explaination: [http://www.tsi.ie/faq.asp](http://www.tsi.ie/faq.asp) ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/51 "2003-03-21T15:59:57Z")
Anecdotal evidence is not something I would ordinarily bring to this kind of discussion, since it is not applicable to the scientific method. However, since others have related their experiences, and felt they were positive proofs that dowsing exists, I will relate one of mine. I first heard about dowsing as a teenager. Not having the Internet available for research, I read as much as I could at the library, then felt I needed to test it for myself. I knew that just walking out into my yard and observing the action of sticks, wires or pendulums \* would prove nothing if I couldn’t verify that water existed only where the rod said it did, and nowhere else.\* I emphasize this, because this step seems to be frequently ignored. So, since I didn’t have a well drilling rig handy, I went to a spot in the country that had an artesian well feeding a small pond year-round. I thought that, by definition, there had to be flowing underground water around the well, so I should be able to detect it somewhere, if not everywhere. Taking the Y-shaped dowsing stick, I held it upright as shown in pictures. Before walking around, I tested to see if it pulled down or not, and discovered that, according to the pressure and angle of my hands, it could be made to point down or up _at the same spot._ Hmmm. Interesting application of leverage, but not much more, methinks. So I picked up two L-shaped, parallel rods/wires in sleeves. I noticed that if I walked, the slightest tipping of my hand angles caused the rods to swing. If they crossed, I found that with a slightly different angle, I could make them cross or uncross _at the same spot on the ground_. I was never able to “detect” any spot on the ground which might indicate water below in a reliable fashion. I left the experiment wondering just how anyone could think there was any force operating here other than simple physics. (Or else I just didn’t have “the force” that others did.) What all these devices have in common is they are _unstable systems._ Slight hand or body movements can cause magnified reactions. Wishful thinking can cause the same results over the same location by the same person, but tests have been done that show repeatability across different persons, if they do not know what someone else did, is nonexistent. (links elsewhere in this thread) ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/52 "2003-03-21T16:08:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by control-z \* > **I’m not saying I have any magical dowsing talents. I don’t think the person has much to do with it other than walking slowly and holding the stick or rods. I believe there can be a scientific explaination for it.** Doesn’t matter. Can you show you can do it, in a controlled double-blind experiment similar to those carried out by Randi and others in the links I provided or that described by me above? I don’t care _why_ it works until I’ve seen _that_ it works. Does it? ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/53 "2003-03-21T16:53:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* I believe there can be a scientific explaination for it. \*\* I believe there can be a scientific explaination for the Loch Ness Monster. But (and this is the importantant point) there is no evidence to support it. If you bring any evidence to the table, people will take your claims seriously. But your anecdotes aren’t evidence for the reasons people have explained several times. A double blind experiment will produce evidence. Going out with your dowsing rod in your backyard produces stories. ---
**Author:** ![citybadger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/45deac/32.png) [@citybadger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/citybadger)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/54 "2003-03-21T22:28:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Priceguy \* > \*\*I don’t care _why_ it works until I’ve seen _that_ it works. Does it? \*\* Oh but I think people care why it might work, even before they’ve seen it does. One of our reasons for being skeptical of dowsing is that there is no plausible mechanism for the phenomenon. Any explanation someone comes up with requires ripping a large chunk from the structure of accepted scientific theory. Accepted scientific theory is accepted because of the huge weight of evidence for it. I’m willing consider believing in some questionable things because they don’t require rejecting other theories with better evidence. Hypnosis for example. Ancient Roman visits to the New World. UFO’s as alien visitiations. Freudian psychiatry. I’m willing to at least hear out arguments for them because they require me only to adjust my views of the human mind, Roman culture and naval abilities, and probable alien behavior. Stuff which is documented by evidence poorly, to say the least. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/55 "2003-03-22T00:04:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by citybadger \* > **Oh but I think people care why it might work, even before they’ve seen it does.** I think they’re starting at the wrong end. I don’t want to hear about how aliens travel faster than light until I’ve seen at least a shred of evidence that they do. > [@](#): > > **One of our reasons for being skeptical of dowsing is that there is no plausible mechanism for the phenomenon.** A very tiny reason, dwarfed by the fact that there is no evidence that the phenomenon exists at all. > [@](#): > > **Any explanation someone comes up with requires ripping a large chunk from the structure of accepted scientific theory.** Not necessarily, and still beside the point. When someone proves that it works, then we can start worrying about how it works. > [@](#): > > \*\*I’m willing consider believing in some questionable things because they don’t require rejecting other theories with better evidence. Hypnosis for example. Ancient Roman visits to the New World. UFO’s as alien visitiations. Freudian psychiatry. I’m willing to at least hear out arguments for them because they require me only to adjust my views of the human mind, Roman culture and naval abilities, and probable alien behavior. Stuff which is documented by evidence poorly, to say the least. \*\* I’m willing to hear the arguments, but they won’t make a believer out of me if they cannot back it up with evidence. Freud may have been right, but nothing seems to point in that direction. Until new evidence comes to light, I’ll assume he was wrong. It’s the same with the other things you mention (except hypnosis, which does exist, albeit not in the form commonly associated with the term). ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/56 "2003-03-22T00:16:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by GusNSpot \* > Now, everyone one wants proof. Okay, what is proof? 100% accuracy? 95%? 60%? 40%? Hummmm Well, personally, I would want something a bit better than ZERO%, which is the best any dowser has yet done above chance in any controlled, blind test. ---
**Author:** ![control-z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@control-z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/control-z)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/57 "2003-03-22T02:26:31Z")
This is some interesting reading: [http://www-eaps.mit.edu/erl/research/environment.html#D](http://www-eaps.mit.edu/erl/research/environment.html#D) The most interesting part is this: “As was explained on the geothermal imaging page, resistivity has many applications, including water prospecting. This is because water sources at depth (due to aquifers, underground rivers, and the like) will be very conductive relative to the surrounding medium.” So could dowsing be some crude way to detect the conductivity of water? I know it says water sources “at depth” are very conductive, but according to the graph the blue areas conduct best, and even the first level shows some blue. And the blue area gets larger all the way to the large blue area at the deepest level, which is where they say may be a more stable aquifier for the local people. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/58 "2003-03-22T04:20:01Z")
Yes, dowsing could be all that, but all the testing in the world shows that it isn’t. We could come up with lots of hypotheticals, but until you show evidence that dowsing actually works, all this is just blowing smoke. All the current evidence (repeated, verified, confirmed) shows no evidence of dowsing. As we’ve said a few times, show that dowsing works in a double-blind scientifically designed test and people will consider the explainations. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/59 "2003-03-22T04:47:48Z")
> [@](#): > > Oh but I think people care why it might work, even before they’ve seen it does. One of our reasons for being skeptical of dowsing is that there is no plausible mechanism for the phenomenon. For that matter, there is currently no plausible explanation for the existance of ultra-high energy cosmic rays. But they exist nonetheless, and no scientist will deny it. Before the detectors were built, the theorists said they were impossible, and so people didn’t bother trying to explain them. Then, when the results from experiments started coming in, folks realized that the theories were wrong in some way, so _now_ people are trying to figure out how to correct the theories. Observations are the be-all and end-all in science. Theories can help us to interpret observations, or to predict new results, or to guide our decisions of what observations to make. But observation always trumps theory. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/60 "2003-03-22T07:06:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by control-z \* > \*\*So could dowsing be some crude way to detect the conductivity of water? I know it says water sources “at depth” are very conductive, but according to the graph the blue areas conduct best, and even the first level shows some blue. And the blue area gets larger all the way to the large blue area at the deepest level, which is where they say may be a more stable aquifier for the local people. \*\* One last time: This is _totally uninteresting_. An explanation for the phenomenon has absolutely no value if it hasn’t been shown that the phenomenon exists. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp? _First_ show evidence that it works, _then_ explain why. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555.md?page=4)