# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![GusNSpot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gusnspot/32/436_2.png) [@GusNSpot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GusNSpot)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/61 "2003-03-22T07:25:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Priceguy \* > \*\* > > 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. \*\* Thanks for the reply. Q … Why did you feel the need to change the test to use flower pots? That was not what I said I could do. LOL This is one of the reasons I wonder about the tests. Testees let the testers change the test in a small way. Not really complaing, just noting that this is why a lot of people think the testers cheat as much as the testees. flip ya for it… uh… 2 out of 3? Now, about UFO’s … ::::: flee :::::: ;j ---
**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, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/62 "2003-03-22T07:33:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by GusNSpot \*\*\*Why did you feel the need to change the test to use flower pots? That was not what I said I could do. LOL > > This is one of the reasons I wonder about the tests. Testees let the testers change the test in a small way.\*\* Oh my God. How does Randi keep sane dealing with people like this day in and day out. Read the post. Note the last part: > [@](#): > > obviously the entire setup and design would be there for you to accept or revise. And you specified finding “½” galvanized pipe aged 10 years and buried 3-6 inches under ground". I assumed that whether or not it was the actual ground was irrelevant, as was whether the object in question was surrounded by pottery. So listen to me now. You are allowed to change the test in any way you see fit. As am I, until we’re both satisfied. I’ve said this before, but you chose to ignore it in order to be able to live on in your delusion. If the flowerpots would hinder you, we’ll do it another way. I used them to make it easier, which should be a priority for both of us. ---
**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, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/63 "2003-03-22T07:35:20Z")
And before you think that I’ve actually offered to test you, note this: I’m not James Randi and have nothing to do with the JREF, and I certainly have no million to pay out. I described the test I would design in a hypothetical situation. But if you come to Sweden, I’ll happily test you… ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/64 "2003-03-22T07:59:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by control-z \* > **I believe there can be a scientific explaination for it.** Explanation for what? Science works by finding facts (observations and experimental results) and then constructing theories to explain them. Or you use the current theories to make predictions, and test those predictions by experiments or observations. There is no theory that predicts that dowsing works, and there is no documented proof that it is a real phenomenon. So there’s nothing to explain. Go and do a controlled experiment and if it’s successful, we can start thinking about the explanation. Without it there is nothing to explain. I remember when I first read about dowsing. I didn’t have a backyard so I walked down the hallway with two bent wires and amazingly enough, it moved right outside the bathroom. Wow, it works! It makes sense there’s a water pipe under the hallway in front of the bathroom, so it must be correct! Of course I knew that before I started the experiment, so it’s no wonder I got that result. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/65 "2003-03-22T10:58:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kanicbird \* > \*\*As for Cecils take on it, if current science can’t prove it Cecil does not believe it. If Cecil was alive 1000 yrs ago he would be saying the earth is flat and is the center of the universe. \*\* Why would current science have any trouble proving dowsing? All you’d need to do is run a controlled test and see if anyone can dowse. Oh. It’s been done. Everyone fails. Oops. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by control-z \* > \*\*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. \*\* You don’t say in your post whether you actually checked that the water pipe was where the rod pulled. Was it? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kanicbird \* > **Cecil, in his columns, doesn’t allow for future discovery.** So let me get this straight. If people claim they can do something but they all fail double blind testing, Cecil should just write that it can be or may be able to be done, because at some time in the future someone might be able to prove that it can be done, even though they can’t now. Hey Cecil, I am quite certain Invisible Pink Unicorns exist. Kanicbird demands that you at least admit of the possibility NOW, you close minded bastard! \*\* > [@](#): > > As for dowsing, If it works I don’t think anyone who can do it can actually explain how it works, just that it works.\*\* Interestingly, if you read Randi’s site, you will find that his attitude is precisely in accordance with yours. He doesn’t even want to hear people’s long winded bullshit theories about how they can perform miracles. He just wants them to show that they can. Too bad none of them can. So many potential dowser millionaires, so few dowser millionaires. ---
**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, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/66 "2003-03-22T15:17:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Priceguy \* > \*\*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. \*\* Why are you still here? If you have nothing new to contribute then quit being a broken record. ---
**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, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/67 "2003-03-22T15:19:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Princhester \* > [B > > You don’t say in your post whether you actually checked that the water pipe was where the rod pulled. Was it? > > \*\* Yes, I should have explicitly said that. It was exactly where the water pipe was. My dad knew where it was but I had no idea. Before people start jumping on me again, I’m not saying I’m a professional dowser. I’m just saying I tried it and it worked, and I think it’s interesting to discuss the possibilities. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/68 "2003-03-22T15:44:35Z")
Fine. Go talk to Amazing Randi and collect your $1,000,000. ---
**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, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/69 "2003-03-22T17:40:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by control-z \* > \*\*Why are you still here? If you have nothing new to contribute then quit being a broken record. \*\* Takes one to know one. I ask you to perform a proper test before making claims about dowsing. You respond with theories about how it works. I point out that you should still perform a proper test. And so on. You’re the broken record here; you make baseless claims and produce anecdotal evidence (which is non-evidence), and occasionally throw in a theory explaining something that hasn’t been shown to exist in the first place. And now, when you start to realise that you probably won’t be able to complete a proper test, you get belligerent and cease to argue, instead choosing to try and chase me away. Ain’t gonna work, bucko. Either you prove that dowsing works or stop claiming that it does. How to prove that dowsing works? Well, returning from Fort Lauderdale with that million dollars should do the trick. ---
**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, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/70 "2003-03-22T18:27:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Priceguy \* > \*\* > And now, when you start to realise that you probably won’t be able to complete a proper test, you get belligerent and cease to argue, instead choosing to try and chase me away. Ain’t gonna work, bucko. Either you prove that dowsing works or stop claiming that it does. > > \*\* LOL, you’re not reading. I have maintained all along that I have no knowledge or interest in scientifically proving dowsing works. I can’t prove it works and you can’t prove it doesn’t, ok? All the dowsing believers are being pretty quiet here, leaving me to these “prove it or shut up” people. I just wanted to hear some more theories on how it works. This whole thread was started by someone who believed dowsing is a real thing or we wouldn’t be here. ---
**Author:** ![SCSimmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e495f1/32.png) [@SCSimmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SCSimmons)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/71 "2003-03-22T20:03:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Priceguy \* > \*\*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. \*\* Well, thank you Professor Popper. 😃 What I was trying to get at was something like this: If someone was able to derive from, say, Maxwell’s equations and known principles of geology/hydrology an explanation for how some dowsing processes would necessarily work, _and_ the theory was able to explain both sporadic field successes and the problems with the previously performed experiments, _ **and** _ show how to design a good double-blind experiment that, while difficult to correctly implement, could demonstrate the existence of the phenomenon; then that would be a scientific theory of dowsing, even prior to the successful performance of the experiment. It wouldn’t establish that the phenomenon existed, naturally. But scientists would be a lot more patient with the fiddling with the experiments’ details after repeated failures, and a lot less likely to dismiss the theory’s proponents as idiots. The biggest problem with this kind of theoretical approach to dowsing is that the phenomenon, as described by the true believers, is simple enough that it ought to be really easy to design a good double-blind experiment without any solid theoretical grounding. Compared with, say, my favorite experiment in my senior physics lab, which was measuring ‘second sound’ in liquid helium\*. It wouldn’t occur to anyone to look for that if it weren’t predicted by theoretical quantum physics, and even so, you wouldn’t know _how_ to look for it without a whole lot more development and practice with the technology. Even knowing what we were looking for and how to find it, it took a while to start to collect good data. When we got nothing at first, our immediate hypothesis was that something was wrong with our experimental setup, not that quantum physics theory was wrong … \*This was my favorite experiment because (a) the theory was cool, (b) I got to work with a lot of liquid helium and liquid nitrogen, which are _really_ cool 🆒 , and, um, (c) Hi Opal! ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/72 "2003-03-23T04:16:34Z")
**GusNSpot** said: > [@](#): > > Why did you feel the need to change the test to use flower pots? That was not what I said I could do. LOL > > This is one of the reasons I wonder about the tests. Testees let the testers change the test in a small way. > > Not really complaing, just noting that this is why a lot of people think the testers cheat as much as the testees. Sorry, that’s not going to fly. **Priceguy** said upfront that the test method would be revised by either party until _both_ agreed. That is the same method used by Randi. If you don’t agree to the test, it’s not fair. We all agree on that. So we make sure the test fits what _you say you can do_. Thus, if you don’t like the flower pots, say no. Why add the flower pots? It allows self-contained dirt piles that can be placed anywhere. It controls the spacing between the possible locations. This means it eliminates the possibility of interference between samples. For instance, how much space do you require between the pipes to ensure you don’t get a cross reading? 1 foot? 5 feet? The pots can be spaced however far apart is required. Furthermore, it defines the exact spots you have to determine, yes or no. As opposed to your field or road. But we could do it with a field or road. It just becomes harder to set up. The pots make is smaller and easier to set up. But if the pots are a problem, we could work around that. Say we find a field or road or patch of ground, using your previous number, 40 ft wide and, what, 50 feet long. We mark off the length with marks every 5 ft, for a total of 10. Now we have to bury a pipe at one of those locations, or rather have someone else bury a pipe at one of those locations and record in a sealed envelope where. And we have to do it in a way that precludes leaving a tell as to where. For instance, if we disturb the dirt in only one place, then you can guess where it is just by looking. So the dirt has to be disturbed at all the locations. Then we can’t just run the test once, so we have to reset the test, which means digging up the pipe and putting it in another randomly controlled slot. See how labor extensive this gets? Now doesn’t it make a lot more sense to take a 4 inch long piece of galvanized pipe and put in in a large flower pot full of dirt? Again, you have control over the test. No test proceeds until _you_ decide that the test is fairly set up, and that you can perform under the conditions of the test. Non-blinded trial runs will be allowed for you to verify the test works under the conditions of the day, and that you’re not “having an off day”, that there aren’t “interfering ley lines”, that some unknown factor such as an unknown water line is throwing things off. The test won’t go forward until both parties agree to the conditions. And the test won’t go forward until both parties have agreed to the conditions that indicate a successful test. And under Randi’s protocol, the determination of pass or fail would be something obvious and not requiring a judgement call. So you can _say_ the testers are playing games, cheating, but where is the cheating when the testee has just as much control over the protocol, and just as much control over whether the test occurs or not? Thought of a revision of my above protocol, to perhaps speed things up a bit. Use a fair coin toss (by our neutral third party setting up the test site) to decide for each location, and put the pipes down all at once. So maybe there are 10 or maybe 0, but most likely there is 3 to 7 pipes. You don’t know how many, and have to find them. You spend as long as you need, not timed, and record where you think they are. Then after you are complete, we compare your results with the recorded locations, and dig up the pipes to verify the recorded locations are the actual ones. The only thing I can’t decide is how many trial runs we need, and what the probabilities by chance are. We would need to determine what the probabilities by chance are, and what the error bars are, to find out what constitutes within the range of chance (+/- 5%?) and what is above chance. ---
**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 23, 2003, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/73 "2003-03-23T05:06:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by control-z \* > \*\*I can’t prove it works and you can’t prove it doesn’t, ok? > \*\* That’s not the way science works; science doesn’t offer proof. What science offers is evidence, and the evidence is that every time dowsing has been tested, it has failed. If you want to present evidence (not anecdotes) about dowsing, go ahead. But until then there’s not much to talk about. > [@](#): > > \*\*I just wanted to hear some more theories on how it works. \*\* How _what_ works? No one has found any data that shows dowsing works. How is it possible to come up with theories about non-existant phenomena? ---
**Author:** ![GusNSpot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gusnspot/32/436_2.png) [@GusNSpot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GusNSpot)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/74 "2003-03-23T08:05:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by GusNSpot \* > \*\* > A for instance :::: **Hypothetical** :::: > > 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? > > I make no claim about anything but ½" galvanized pipe aged 10 years and buried 3-6 inches under ground. \*\* I said 40 feet long and at least 100 of them. No you can’t change anything. I will be blindfolded for the test. you can dig or tunnel the lines. They will be water filled… The test can be several miles long and I’ll decide the type of ground, the date and time of year, time of day and general humidity and ground saturation and temperature. You may not change any of my conditions. I don’t care if they are awkward, expensive or time consuming. - I really don’t think that Mr. R will go to that much trouble. I wouldn’t. It has been an interesting discussion. Thanks for letting me play… Of course I can’t find anything, the whole thing does not exist… Science is always objective and has never made an mistake yet. \* :::::::: goes whistling off into the fog. ::::::::::: ;j ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/75 "2003-03-23T13:38:57Z")
Cute bluff, but a little transparent. Put up or shut up. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/76 "2003-03-23T14:01:07Z")
If I go dowsing in my bathroom, and the dowsing rod always finds the toilet … even if I’m blindfolded… D’you think Randi’d give me the million? Half? A cool hundred thou? … Twenty bucks? ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/77 "2003-03-23T14:48:43Z")
I’ll bet **MS. Dexter Haven** wishes you always found the toilet with your “rod.” \ _Clean-up in aisle 7 !_ ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/78 "2003-03-23T22:56:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by GusNSpot \* > \*\*I said 40 feet long and at least 100 of them. > > No you can’t change anything. > > I will be blindfolded for the test. you can dig or tunnel the lines. They will be water filled… > > The test can be several miles long and I’ll decide the type of ground, the date and time of year, time of day and general humidity and ground saturation and temperature. > > You may not change any of my conditions. > > I don’t care if they are awkward, expensive or time consuming. > > - I really don’t think that Mr. R will go to that much trouble. I wouldn’t. It has been an interesting discussion. Thanks for letting me play… > > Of course I can’t find anything, the whole thing does not exist… Science is always objective and has never made an mistake yet. \* > > :::::::: goes whistling off into the fog. ::::::::::: ;j \*\* Fog is right. You don’t think Randi will go to that much trouble? Is that why you propose the test you do? In the lame hope that anyone who would otherwise test you would be put off so that you can go on making unsubstantiated claims? Actually I think you would be surprised the lengths Randi would go to help you set up the test just the way you want it. All you have to do is contact him. But, (using your words) I really don’t think Mr G. will go to _that much trouble_. Truly surprising how little trouble people will go to, to win a million bucks. It’s enough to make you wonder if they know they are fakes, frankly… ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/79 "2003-03-24T04:39:57Z")
So let me get this straight: you want to specify test conditions so precise and controlled (“type of ground, the date and time of year, time of day and general humidity and ground saturation and temperature”) that in practical situations they would almost never exist. In other words, you can dowse, but the circumstances are so limited that it’s practically useless. Thanks for admitting that. You can specify the constraints as tightly as you need to perform. However, JREF does state > [@](#): > > All expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials, assistants, and/or all other costs for any persons or procedures incurred in pursuit of the reward, are the sole responsibility of the applicant. Neither the JREF nor JR will bear any of the costs. > **[Home](https://web.randi.org)** > > JREF So Randi would be happy to make the test as controlled and specific and difficult as you require to perform, but realize that you would bear the costs. And you need to spell out all those specifics in advance, so the test protocol can be devised and agreed to, and the location can be selected and set up. But really, why do you want to make it that hard _on yourself_, unless your real reason is **not** to test. I mean, the simplifications offered are as much to make it easier on you as they are to make them easier to set up. Instead of searching a mile long stretch or a football field sized plot, you search a room full of pots. But if the field is what you need, it can be arranged. But I have to wonder why you don’t think Randi would “go to that much trouble”. He’s interested in finding the truth of your claim. Are you? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/80 "2003-03-24T04:43:11Z")
Of course, spending a few thousand bucks to win a million would have to be worth it if your skills exist, hey GusnSpot? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555.md?page=5)