### Author:  [@patchbunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/patchbunny)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2003, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/107 "2003-04-16T17:11:00Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by peter morris \*
> \*\*
> You seem to ignore the fact that Randi sets the test, and the subjuect must abide by his rules. Can’t say less fair than that. \*\*
You seem to ignore a great deal, like, say, the actual rules of the challenge.
From [http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html](http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html) :
"1. Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most important of these rules. "
–Patch
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2003, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/108 "2003-04-16T18:19:08Z")
> [@](#):
>
> So we are still waiting on your cite for where a dowser has said that he moves the stick subconsciously and Randi has purported to debunk them by proving the stick moves subconsciously.
Already given, but since you missed it the first time:
1. a dowser says he moves the stick subconsiously:
[http://tinyurl.com/9m3b](http://tinyurl.com/9m3b)
\<\\>
Note the date here. This was not written in response to Randi’s claims.
1. Randi has purported to debunk them by proving the stick moves subconsciously
[http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm](http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm)
Randi says \<\< Whether it is a forked stick clenched in both hands and bent apart in a horizontal position, or a small pendulum held at the fingertips, the dowsing instrument is in a state of unbalance or stress. Any slight movement or outside influence can start it moving, and subsequent dramatic motions of the device are taken as evidence of strange forces at work. Actually it is the dowser himself who initiates the movement—mostly unconsciously.\>\>
Randi has done a good job here of misrepresenting the dowsers claims. He has succesfully convinced you that dowsers claim that the stick moves by itself. He then attacks that claim, and proves that the stick does not move by itself.
One of two things has happened here.
1. Randi hasn’t bothered to find out what the Dowsers are actually claiming’
2. Randi knows what they are claiming and has chosen to lie.
> [@](#):
>
> I called you disingenuous because you pretended that Randi’s conditions were unfair because they were inflexible. You deliberately ignored the fact that his rules merely say that the test is to be mutually agreed. Can’t get fairer than that.
You seem to ignore the fact that Randi sets the test, and the subjuect must abide by his rules. Can’t say less fair than that.
---
### Author:  [@vjmurphy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vjmurphy)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2003, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/109 "2003-04-16T18:22:49Z")
patchbunny has it right: In fact, the preliminary challenge is set up so that the applicant demonstrates his/her power first, before any controls are introduced, so that the applicant cannot claim that his/her powers are not working at the time of the test.
The applicant and the JREF jointly set the success criteria, so they really have no reason to complain afterwards.
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2003, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/110 "2003-04-16T19:24:43Z")
First, apologies for multiple posting.
> [@](#):
>
> Peter Morris, around here you don’t get away with spewing off random bullshit hoping that no-one will call you on it. We need facts and figures. Who was Randi testing when he demanded that the guy find a pipe instead of a river? When did it happen? Where can we read about it?
see here: [http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm](http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm)
> [@](#):
>
> Since you have been corrected more than once on this point, I can only conclude that, for unknown reasons, you are deliberately lying, in the rather confused hope that people following this thread cannot read. That being the case, kindly go back under whatever rock you crawled out from.
I am telling the truth. Go see James Randi’s own words here:
[http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm](http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm)
You will see that the subjects had to abide by the rules set by James Randi. Show me where they had the opportunity to say what rules they want. And if they didn’t sign a form saying it was fair, they weren’t allowed to take part.
People must go by the rules Randi sets, or not at all. Fact.
> [@](#):
>
> Subconciously, conciously IT DOESN’T MATTER!.
I love the way you guys keep shifting your arguments.
Look back at Cecil’s original reply. His argument was totally based on the idea that dowsers move the rod themselves, and advanced that as proof that dowsing doesn’t work. Randi says the same in his article. Throughout the thread skeptics have been talking about idiomotor action. This advanced as proof that dowsing doesn’t work.
Now, you change your minds and decide that it doesn’t matter. Well, guys, it was your argument, not mine. If you think it doesn’t matter then YOU wasted everyones time by posting it in the first place, didn’t you.
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > They claim to be able to find underground rivers, say 15 foot accross that runs for 15 miles. Randi tests them on theit ability to find a pipe 6 inches wide by 10 foot, long. Are you genuinely unable to see the difference?
>
> You knock down those straw men are just soooo easily. We are all vewy vewy impressed with your skills and strength. What a big man you are.
>
> So big in fact that you will now have no difficulty finding and pointing out to us where any of us have said we do not see the difference between these things. Will you?
Look at randi’s account here: [http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm](http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm)
He sets people a test to find underground pipes. They fail. From this he concludes that they also can’t find underground rivers.
Now, you admit that there is a difference between underground pipes and underground rivers. Given that admitted difference do you find Randi’s conclusion reasonable?
I for one don’t.
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2003, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/111 "2003-04-16T20:33:25Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by peter morris \*
> First, apologies for multiple posting.
>
> I am telling the truth. Go see James Randi’s own words here:
> [http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm](http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm)
> You will see that the subjects had to abide by the rules set by James Randi. Show me where they had the opportunity to say what rules they want. And if they didn’t sign a form saying it was fair, they weren’t allowed to take part.
>
> People must go by the rules Randi sets, or not at all. Fact.
False. Randi has them sign a form so they can’t complain later. And beleive me, they do complain.
The rules were signed and agreeed to by the dowsers. This portion of the terms of the rules has been quoted to you sevearl times. The fact that Randi makes them sign an agreement as to the rules they agreed to does not mean he is setting the rules. Its merely proper documentation. This prevents the claimant (and Randi!) from changing the conditions in the middle of the test. Why is this considered unfair by you?
They agreed these conditions were fair in advance. They were more than fair, especially considering that it was Randi’s money on the line.
> [@](#):
>
> I love the way you guys keep shifting your arguments.
Dream faster.
[QUOTE]
Look back at Cecil’s original reply. His argument was totally based on the idea that dowsers move the rod themselves, and advanced that as proof that dowsing doesn’t work. Randi says the same in his article. Throughout the thread skeptics have been talking about idiomotor action. This advanced as proof that dowsing doesn’t work.
> [@](#):
>
> No, the ideomotor effect is an explanation as to why dowsing _seems_ to work. It is not proof in and of itself.
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Now, you change your minds and decide that it doesn’t matter. Well, guys, it was your argument, not mine. If you think it doesn’t matter then YOU wasted everyones time by posting it in the first place, didn’t you.
>
> You must really enjoy raping that strawman.
>
> We’re not changing our arguement. Yes, the rods move. WHO CARES! Whether they move in response to what the dowsers say they do is what matters. The only reason the ideomotor effect is mentioned is to explain to folks who seems to be experiencing a dowsing effect. Its a mundane explanation as to why the sticks may move for the as yet undecided.
>
> The real arguement, as it always was, is “Can the dowser find what he claims.” i.e. water, gold.
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > You knock down those straw men are just soooo easily. We are all vewy vewy impressed with your skills and strength. What a big man you are.
> >
> > So big in fact that you will now have no difficulty finding and pointing out to us where any of us have said we do not see the difference between these things. Will you?
>
> Look at randi’s account here: [http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm](http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm)
>
> He sets people a test to find underground pipes. They fail. From this he concludes that they also can’t find underground rivers.
>
> Now, you admit that there is a difference between underground pipes and underground rivers. Given that admitted difference do you find Randi’s conclusion reasonable?
Randi makes no such conclusion anywhere in his article. He does note that the dowsers failed to find water under conditions they agreed were fair.
For the record, there are no “underground rivers”. The occassional creek in a large cavern complex is about it. Water sits in aquifers.
> [@](#):
>
> I for one don’t. \*\*
Your man of straw is irrelevant. Your complaint is similar to Rnadi testing a man who claims to grossly bend metal spoons with his mind, and then you complain that Randi didn’t test the spoon for electrical resistance.
The dowsers were tested on what they claimed they could do. They happily agreed to the rules, and in fact helped with the protocol. They happily found water and metal with their little sticks when they knew where it was. But once the conditions were blinded…golly, they couldn’t find anything.
Its called a scientific experiment. You shoudl elarn what that means. Meanwhile, I’d say we’ve foudn a person with a greater negative learning curve than **lekatt**.
---
### Author:  [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2003, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/112 "2003-04-16T21:25:56Z")
peter morris, I’d like to take a shot at clearing up a few things.
- You cite as evidence the Australian test, that Randi sets the rules which the participants must agree to. Please note that this was an exception, where they wanted to test several dowsers on one day. For the standard challenge, a dowser would state what exactly he can do, and then he and Randi work on a plan to measure that. The Australian test was atypical, so you can’t use that to support your statement that Randi sets the rules that challengers must agree to.
- You implied that Randi’s detection of the ideomotor movement of the “instruments” was his justification for not awarding the prize, but this is not true.
- No one here has advanced the ideomotor effect as proof that dowsing doesn’t work. It’s simply an explanation of how honest people can be mistaken. The reason an explanation was needed is that you have what seems like a contradiction - the instruments move, apparently by themselves, in a repeatable location, and an honest person says that he’s not doing it intentionally. Enter ideomotor, stage right. But it’s not proof. You can’t prove a negative, but if you look for positive proof and can’t find it, that is pretty good evidence against the idea.
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2003, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/113 "2003-04-16T22:37:09Z")
Ah, Curt, at last a polite response. Thank you.
\*The point about the tests set by Randi is that nobody can force him to set a test if he doesn’t want to. If Randi doesn’t like the conditions demanded by the subject, he simply refuses the test. The subject has to adapt to Randi’s requirements, always.
\*No, I did not intend that implication. Randi uses the argument as part of a general comments about dowsing.; I comment on it to show that Randi hasn’t accurately addressed the claims of the dowsers.
- As a matter of fact, that’s exactly what people claimed at the start of the argument.
Cecils words " The presence of water has no discernible effect on a rod held above it!" The issue is whether it affects the dowser, not the rod. Cecil uses the argument that it doesn’t affect the ROD as an argument against dowsing.
He also says “…his mind unconsciously transmits this knowledge to his arm muscles…” again, as evidence of dowsing NOT working.
There have only been 2 anti-dowsing arguments in this thread, one being ideometric action, the other being Randi not paying.
And, once again, let me reiterate that I do not actually believe in dowsing. I just think that the anti-dowsing arguments fail to disprove it. And I still think James Randi is a fraud.
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2003, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/114 "2003-04-16T23:13:45Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by peter morris \*
> Ah, Curt, at last a polite response. Thank you.
>
> \*The point about the tests set by Randi is that nobody can force him to set a test if he doesn’t want to. If Randi doesn’t like the conditions demanded by the subject, he simply refuses the test. The subject has to adapt to Randi’s requirements, always.
And, as has been pointed out, it is Randi’s money, he’s the one taking the risk. The claiminant risks damn near nothing. Yet somehow Randi is faulted for having some restrictions as to what can be tested. There are simply too many things that are untestable (again, I give you the example of someone claiming to cause storms on Pluto and demanding Randi check with the Hubble
Randi, in what I have seen, has bent over backwards to be accommidating to claimants, as long as the experiment is stilkl controlled. That’s all that matters.
> [@](#):
>
> \*No, I did not intend that implication. Randi uses the argument as part of a general comments about dowsing.; I comment on it to show that Randi hasn’t accurately addressed the claims of the dowsers.
Every single dowser has a different claim. But almost all of them have some kind of testable claim. Randi works with what he can test. Not some test for something that only dowsers think exist (i.e. Undeground rivers).
> [@](#):
>
> - As a matter of fact, that’s exactly what people claimed at the start of the argument.
>
> Cecils words " The presence of water has no discernible effect on a rod held above it!" The issue is whether it affects the dowser, not the rod. Cecil uses the argument that it doesn’t affect the ROD as an argument against dowsing.
>
> He also says “…his mind unconsciously transmits this knowledge to his arm muscles…” again, as evidence of dowsing NOT working.
>
> There have only been 2 anti-dowsing arguments in this thread, one being ideometric action, the other being Randi not paying.
You haven’t been reading. The arguement is not that Randi isn’t paying, its that dowser’s can’t pass controlled tests.
You stated:
"If he allows an outdoors test, then they muast do it blindfold, denying them the subliminal clues from the local geography. And if he detects any involuntary muscle movement then it doesn’t count because the rod must move itself to win the prize. "
Which was a non-starter, you’ve been falling back from this position ever since. Don’t try to tell folks what has been said or not said on this thread.
> [@](#):
>
> And, once again, let me reiterate that I do not actually believe in dowsing. I just think that the anti-dowsing arguments fail to disprove it. And I still think James Randi is a fraud. \*\*
Yes, yes, we are all now aware that you have an irrational prejudice against of the man. That you have established.
I’ve seen this type before. We’re dealing with one of those self-impressed fence sitters who fells they are somehow superior by expressing mild doubt on dowsing, but get much more satisfaction attacking effective skeptics(Randi) with strawmen. This is a smug type, often with a boatload of nonfacts (Randi getting rich on skeptics, I notice our Peter has shied away from proving that). Sometimes this kind calls themsleves Forteans, sometimes not. Its an air of smugness based on the idea that you are somehow superior to all involved by not taking size. In fact it is a self-celebration of wimpy indecision. Most of this crowd is simply thinly disguised woowoo’s in waiting. I’ve seen plenty of them.
---
### Author:  [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2003, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/115 "2003-04-16T23:26:36Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by peter morris \*
> **I comment on it to show that Randi hasn’t accurately addressed the claims of the dowsers.**
peter morris you have said time and again that Randi does not test the real claims of dowsers because they say they can detect underground rivers, but he tests them on pipe. You then go on to throw around accusations of fraud etc.
How do you explain the fact that in the Australian tests to which you have referred several times, the dowsers were first given the opportunity to test their skills in a known situation (ie they were told which pipe was flowing) and every single one of the dowsers confirmed, before the blind testing proceeded, that they _ **could** _ could detect that?
You seem to be at odds with (at the least) a significant number of the dowsers you are standing up for, when you say their skills only work on huge underground rivers and that Randi’s tests are therefore unfair.
---
### Author:  [@Susma\_Rio\_Sep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susma_Rio_Sep)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2003, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/116 "2003-04-16T23:43:09Z")
I would like to invite any knowledgeable people here to shed light on the economics of finding water, namely, which is more money-saving efficient, using dowsers or using ‘professionals’.
I live in a place where professionals know where the lines of the installed water system are located.
Should I buy a a piece of land away from any reach of any water system installed by any developer, then I would like to know whether using dowers or using professionals would be more economical.
Perhaps, the economy of dowsing in conditions where professionals don’t have the advantage of working on installed water system is the feasibility argument for dowsing – whatever the why it ‘works’.
Do we see here the merits of dowsing being similar to the merits of faith-healing, specially in circumstances where people can’t afford conventional medicine or where such kind of medicine has not been able to effect any ‘cure’.
In conclusion: even though I try to be as scientific and as skeptical as possible with my mental resources, when I can save money with dowsers than with ‘professionals’, I think I will go for dowsing.
So, can anyone here give us the statistics on the economy of dowsing vis-a-vis the work of ‘professionals’?
Susma Rio Sep
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2003, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/117 "2003-04-17T02:06:13Z")
Right, fine, Randi has promised a million diollars to whoever can prove dowsing. Great. Well that proves that, then.
But here are a few more offers you good and sensible people might be interested in. I’m sure you all believe in evolution, correct? well if you can prove evolution you can collect $250,000. Go here and collect: [http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k](http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k). After all, evolution exists, so collecting the money should be a breeze. And this is a perfectly genuine offer, it says so on the website, exactly the same as it does on James Randi’s website. ‘the offer is legitimate’ it says in black and white. note that the matter will be judged by a panel of impartial scientists, exactly the same as Randi’s offer.
Oh, wait a moment, the offer has stood since 1990, and nobody has ever claimed. Guess that blows the evolutionists out of the water then. Obviously the poor fools are just as deluded as those insane dowsers.
But here’s another offer that should be much easier. Prove the moon exists and win $100,000.
[http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm](http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm)
This should be much easier to prove than evolution, right. I mean all you have to do is look out your window to see it.
If you want to know the conditions for claiming the prizes contact the people organising them. I’m sure that you will be able to arrange a test that you **both** think is fair and reasonable.
---
### Author:  [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2003, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/118 "2003-04-17T02:40:44Z")
Firstly, peter morris, you haven’t answered my question.
Secondly, Randi gives opportunity after opportunity to self proclaimed dowsers and psychics to prove they can do what they say that they can do and they all fail.
Does that prove anything absolute? No, we never said it did, it’s yet another peter morris straw man special.
No one here is saying that dowsing has been utterly disproven. Whatever test you do, dowsers will always say “OK, but if the moons of jupiter had been differently aligned it would have worked” or (this is always a good one) “it only works when skeptics aren’t around because they give off negative vibes (or whatever)”.
When dowsing fails to be proven under any controlled conditions, and when dowsers agree to certain tests (and agree that those tests are fair, despite your unproven protestations to the contrary) but then fail those tests, it tends to suggest that dowsing is complete BS, but I accept that can never be proven, absolutely.
Your two other monetary prize examples are beneath contempt.
You say:
> [@](#):
>
> Prove the moon exists and win $100,000. This should be much easier to prove than evolution, right. I mean all you have to do is look out your window to see it.
Have you read that site? Clearly not. The author explains that looking out your window would be insufficient. See number 1 example on his list. Secondly, he says “A cash reward of $100,000 has been offered to anyone who can send us, by e-mail, conclusive physical evidence of the existence of the moon.”
Conclusive physical evidence _“by email”_ huh? Riiiggght.
It’s a _joke_ you wally.
As to the evolution offer, as I’m sure you well know, evolution is a very complex theory. “Proving it” in terms of some simple test would always be impossible.
Dowsers are not trying to prove some complex theory, they simply say they can perform a simple verifiable physical task using their own body and a stick (or whatever). Under controlled conditions, they have never been able to demonstrate this, even when offered a million dollars to do so.
You are once again being disingenuous.
---
### Author:  [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2003, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/119 "2003-04-17T03:10:32Z")
> [@](#):
>
> You are once again being disingenuous.
He is once again being completely dishonest. He is a troll. Let us leave him. Pass.
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2003, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/120 "2003-04-17T03:50:25Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by peter morris \*
> But here are a few more offers you good and sensible people might be interested in. I’m sure you all believe in evolution, correct? well if you can prove evolution you can collect $250,000. Go here and collect: [http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k](http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k). After all, evolution exists, so collecting the money should be a breeze.
Oh puh-leeze. Many of us are very familiar with [Kent Hovind’s bogus offer](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html)
At a superficial glance, one might think the offer is similar to Randi’s. However the least amount of investigation shows unreasonable conditions that depend entirely on Kent Hovind’s subjectively and his definition of terms.
By comparison, all Randi demands is that the claim be testable, as well as being sufficiently “paranormal” (for lack of a better term) to qualify (which dowsing is).
The difference is obvious, Randi has put his money up and has had tests. Whiners whine and complain, but never put up theri own money. Randi test, the tests are fair, end of story.
By comparison, Hovind demands that you essentially restructure _his_ belief system. Hard to do on a fanatic.
Now, even if you consider Randi to be a fanatic (an unreasonable assumption), this is irrelevant as far as the challenge is concerned. All you have to do is pass. Randi’s opinion doesn’t enter into it once the test is going.
If Randi disbeleives in the validity of dowsing, that won’t help him keep his money if a doswer managed to find the water/metal/whatever to a sufficient degree. Its an objective test, no matter how much you complain and make surly, unfounded accusations like a spoiled child.
> [@](#):
>
> If you want to know the conditions for claiming the prizes contact the people organising them. I’m sure that you will be able to arrange a test that you **both** think is fair and reasonable. \*\*
Wrong. The fact that you tried this pathetic comparison is laughable. The fact that you midrepresented these bogus “challenges” as legitimate speaks volumes for your lack of integrity.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555.md?page=5)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555.md?page=7)