# Does dowsing for water really work?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555
**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:** 7
### Author:  [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2003, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/121 "2003-04-17T04:37:58Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by peter morris \*
> \*\*Ah, Curt, at last a polite response. \*\*
I forgot to respond to this gem.
You poor abused creature. We are all being so impolite. What _have_ you done to provoke such rudeness?.
Straight away, we jump in and as our very first post start calling you a putz.
Oh, wait a minute, no. That was you.
---
### Author:  [@patchbunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/patchbunny)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2003, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/122 "2003-04-17T06:14:30Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by peter morris \*
> \*\*First, apologies for multiple posting.
>
> see here: [http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm](http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm)
>
> 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.\*\*
Oh, geez. Where to begin?
Tell ya what, Pete. Why don’t you go to a Las Vegas casino, set your fanny down at the blackjack table, and loudly demand to be paid $100 every time you bust. Then after you get thrown out, get yourself on _Jeopardy!_, and tell Alex Trebek that when your opponents get the correct answer, you should get awarded the money, not them. As you walk across the studio parking lot, massaging your bruised butt from where it impacted the asphalt, reflect upon the reasons why you weren’t allowed to tell others how they should run their events.
Yes, by all means, let’s take a look at the web page. If you read it, you find that:
a) claimants agreed that they could locate water flowing under the conditions of the test.
IOW, they stated **“Yes, I can find water under these conditions by dowsing.”** If they felt their skills only permitted them to find water flowing in underground rivers and not pipes, and they persisted in continuing, then they have no reason to bitch when they failed. They were simply stupid.
Clue: if you’re a skilled archer, and you load up your bow and arrows into your car and drive to the tournament, don’t be so surprised when you don’t do well at the 1000-meter rifle range.
b) before they were tested, each claimant each demonstrated that they could find water _when they knew its exact location_
IOW, each claimant demonstrated that they indeed could find water _when they knew where it was._ Claimants had no reason to bitch that they could not detect water under test conditions, as they just demonstrated that they _could_ find water under test conditions. Your claims about unfair testing are bullshit.
c) when actually tested, and each dowser did not know where water was flowing, **they failed to find water beyond that expected by chance**.
Claimants agreed they could perform under the conditions of the test. Claimants demonstrated they could perform under the conditions of the test. Claimants all failed the test.
Sounds to me that they didn’t have the skills they stated.
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*
> I love the way you guys keep shifting your arguments.
> \*\*
I love how you refuse to understand everything said to you.
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*
> 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.\*\*
1. Ummm… the only one here stating that “dowsers move the rods, therefore dowsing doesn’t work,” is you. Everyone else is very clear in stating that it doesn’t matter, what matters is whether or not the dowsers are successful.
I agree the argument is a waste of time. Stop using it, and we’ll all stop telling you how wrong you are and will concentrate more on your other errors.
1. Cecil says no such thing. Cecil quite clearly states that,
"Needless to say, dowsing is entirely a fraud, although often an unconscious one. Innumerable experiments, beginning in 1641–that’s right, 1641–have demonstrated that:
(a) The presence of water has no discernible effect on a rod held above it, whether the rod is made of wood, metal, or anything else.
(b) The success rate for diviners is about the same as that for people who use the hit-and-miss method when looking for water.
© Geologists trained to recognize telltale surface clues (certain kinds of rocks and plants, various topographical features) will invariably far outdo dowsers in predicting where water will be found, and at what depth."
i.e., dowsing doesn’t work because dowsers aren’t finding anything more successfully than anyone else.
1. Randi says no such thing. Dowsing doesn’t work because the claimants failed. The rods moved because of the ideomotor reaction. To quote Randi from the same article,
“The test of dowsing is, therefore, not whether the rod moves—but whether such movement actually shows us something we did not previously know.”
and also,
“Any person can be seized by the idiomotor-reaction enthusiasm. But the test, as always, is whether or not they can then discover water, oil, gold or other substance solely by means of this twitching of a forked stick. Tests done in Australia and many other countries of the world indicate that belief in water dowsing, and in all forms of divining, are false and fanciful.”
Randi is quite clear that the ideomotor reaction is irrelevant to the greater question of whether or not dowsing works.
Let’s summarize:
Point 1: Dowsing doesn’t work because repeated tests have demonstrated that it does not work
Point 2: A dowser’s rods move because of the ideomotor reaction
You will notice neither point 1 nor 2 mentions the other. Please remember that.
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*
> 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.\*\*
Elmer, for future reference, this type of attitude goes over much better when you haven’t repeatedly been show to be an utter boob. Right now it’s just identifying you as a loser who lacks reading comprehension skills.
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*
> 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. \*\*
[/QUOTE]
To quote the article again (I’m beginning to wonder if you read it),
“The tests had been done using forked sticks, L-shaped metal rods, pendulums and other varied means. Only two dowsers said there were natural streams running underground in the area and both agreed these would not interfere with the tests. But—and it’s a very big “but”—they also disagreed with one another about where these streams flowed, and thus also disagreed with all the others who said there were no streams!”
Now, I’m sure that one could drill a test well and find out for sure whether there’s water present, but given that water is predominantly found in the ground water table, and rarely flows in specific “underground rivers”, I’d bet that there’s water on-site.
> [@](#):
>
> 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. \*\*
Cecil and Randi base their opinions on dowsing on the numerous tests performed many, many, many, many times over many, many, many, many years, not solely upon what happened in Australia in 1980. Since 1641, dowsing has not been shown to work. There’s no reason to believe otherwise.
–Patch
---
### Author:  [@patchbunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/patchbunny)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2003, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/123 "2003-04-17T06:25:21Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Susma Rio Sep \*
> \*\*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 \*\*
I don’t know where you are located, but if you are within the United States, I’d contact the US Geological Survey. It’s late late late, and I’m going off the top of my head, but IIRC, you can get soils information from their site (I have some soil reference pages, but they’re bookmarked at work). Also, talk to a local geologist! I’ve worked with them before in my job, and it’s amazing what they can tell you! 🙂 Geologists in your area would also be able to help you develop a well.
Also, grab a geology book or two and learn about the ground beneath your feet. It’s a lot of fun, you’ll learn stuff, and it’s money better spent than on a dowser.
As for your last question, in Cecil’s article ( [http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1\_168.html](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_168.html) ),
“Geologists trained to recognize telltale surface clues (certain kinds of rocks and plants, various topographical features) will invariably far outdo dowsers in predicting where water will be found, and at what depth.”
Don’t have exact numbers, but go with Cecil. I trust him more than a coupla bent coathangers.
–Patch
---
### Author:  [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2003, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/124 "2003-04-17T06:31:42Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by patchbunny \*
> **Elmer, for future reference, this type of attitude goes over much better when you haven’t repeatedly been show to be an utter boob. Right now it’s just identifying you as a loser who lacks reading comprehension skills.**
Dude, Gaudere’s law will get you every time!
The words you quote are mine, not peter morris’s. He was just quoting me, talking about him.
I’m not sure whether I’ve been shown to be an utter boob repeatedly or not, so whether my attitude goes over well is hard to say. No doubt opinions vary.
😃
regards
Elmer
---
### Author:  [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2003, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/125 "2003-04-17T09:56:46Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by peter morris \*
> **see here: [http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm](http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm)**
I’ve read it. Nowhere does it say that one of the dowsers said he could only find underground rivers.
> [@](#):
>
> **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.**
Obviously, it’s his money. Note these two lines:
“Claimant (above) has examined the layout and the established system, and agrees that it is satisfactory.”
“I agree that the rules as outlined in the accompanying Document Number Two (Rules for Test) are fair and proper.”
The dowsers signed this. They did open tests first, with success. To reiterate: _When they knew where the water, gold or brass was, they could find it_. That invalidates each and every claim that the tests were unfair. They did it, they tried, and they believed that they could do it in a blind test too. They couldn’t.
> [@](#):
>
> **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, as you’ve been told. Cecil writes the following:
"(a) The presence of water has no discernible effect on a rod held above it, whether the rod is made of wood, metal, or anything else.
(b) The success rate for diviners is about the same as that for people who use the hit-and-miss method when looking for water.
© Geologists trained to recognize telltale surface clues (certain kinds of rocks and plants, various topographical features) will invariably far outdo dowsers in predicting where water will be found, and at what depth."
Of these, only (a) has anything to do with what you claim. (a) disproves that it’s the rod, but it’s (b) and © that disprove that dowsing works (as far as that is possible, which is not all the way).
> [@](#):
>
> **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’re the guy who’s been talking about how Randi and Cecil say that the ideomotor effect disproves dowsing, which they don’t, as you’ve been shown several times. For us, it was an explanation, not an argument.
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*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. \*\*
I can’t find where he says that. He does, however, say that underground rivers are fictional, and so pretty hard to find in the first place. And, of course, there’s this bit:
“Only two dowsers said there were natural streams running underground in the area and both agreed these would not interfere with the tests. But—and it’s a very big “but”—they also disagreed with one another about where these streams flowed, and thus also disagreed with all the others who said there were no streams!”
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*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. \*\*
Yes, there’s a difference between underground pipes and underground rivers. One exists, the other doesn’t. Anyway, the dowsers said they could perform as requested, they couldn’t, and that’s the end of it.
---
### Author:  [@patchbunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/patchbunny)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2003, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/126 "2003-04-17T12:59:56Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Princhester \*
> \*\*Dude, Gaudere’s law will get you every time!
>
> The words you quote are mine, not peter morris’s. He was just quoting me, talking about him.
>
> I’m not sure whether I’ve been shown to be an utter boob repeatedly or not, so whether my attitude goes over well is hard to say. No doubt opinions vary.
>
> 😃
>
> regards
> Elmer \*\*
Fer cryin’ out loud. :smack:
Sorry. It just… just… seemed so much like his attitude…
–Patch
---
### Author:  [@patchbunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/patchbunny)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2003, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/127 "2003-04-17T13:03:31Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by C K Dexter Haven \*
> \*\*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? \*\*
I think if there was a gizmo that allowed men to always find the toilet, even when blindfolded, the women of the world would gladly _pay_ Randi the million bucks.
–Patch
---
### Author:  [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2003, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/128 "2003-04-17T13:31:33Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Mr. Miskatonic \*
> I’d say we’ve foudn a person with a greater negative learning curve than **lekatt**.
Oh, no! :eek: Say it ain’t so, Joe! :eek: :eek:
---
### Author:  [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2003, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/129 "2003-04-17T18:18:17Z")
Y’know what, Randi’s tests with pipes don’t prove anything about dowsers’ ability to find underground rivers. But you’re overlooking the more important fact, that the tests _also_ don’t prove anything about dowsers’ ability to say “She sells seashells by the seashore” seven times fast while standing on their heads. How can he get away with such a fraud, I ask??? By any fair rules, a person should be able to win a million dollars by saying a tounge-twister upside-down, but Randi always goes and changes the rules to say that they have to find pipes, instead.
---
### Author:  [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)
#### Post date: [April 18, 2003, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/130 "2003-04-18T09:32:25Z")
Taking another tack…
**peter morris** , your argument seems to be that dowsers claim that the locating of underground water is not by some mystical effect of the water upon the rod (or pendulum), but upon the person bearing the rod. Your claim seems to be that most dowsers understand the effect to be this way. Further, you claim that the real trick to dowsing is that the dowsers are picking up subtle clues from the surroundings and then making the rods move themselves.
I scratch my head. If dowsers are just picking up subtle clues from the surroundings and making the rods move themselves, what about it is paranormal? The only thing is that they are unable to understand why they know to drill here vs there, which is completely different from trained hydrologists who do know why they pick here over there. So you are saying dowsers claim to be untrained, intuitive hydrologists who can’t say why they pick the location they do, just that it’s the best location. Uh huh. I really don’t think that’s the case.
For instance, what do ley lines mean, and why do dowsers search for them?
You claim that dowsers can only find underground rivers or underground water, because they know they need the local terrain to go by. Then explain dowsers who search for gold, coins, lost treasure, buried walls of ruins, and other types of objects and materials that are not due to nature. How is the terrain to help them find a buried coin from the 15th century?
Also, it has been pointed out numerous times, and even on the site you link, that the dowsers themselves tried it under the exact test conditions except they knew where the water was flowing. All of them said they could do it. Any possible interferences that they identified were removed or accounted for, such as the claimed underground rivers that the two dowsers said were there but would not affect their performance. So **these dowsers** all claimed they could find either (a) water flowing in pipes as opposed to just underground streams, or (b) materials (gold, brass) in boxes. So it doesn’t matter what “most” dowsers claim, because the ones being tested said they could operate under the test conditions. Period.
Regarding the test conditions, of course Randi sets the rules. It’s his money on the line. However, the test conditions are also approved by the claimants. It is written all over the place, from the description of the test you have and the forms they sign to the JREF Challenge rules page, that the claimants list what they can do and what constraints on their performance are in effect. The claimants also have an equal say in test design. You seem to think there’s something wrong with Randi making the rules. Why?
You say that Randi rigs the tests, and that the dowsers have to agree to his rules or they don’t get to take the challenge. However, if that happened they could then go forward showing Randi isn’t fair. But the thing is that Randi has the exchanges in written form, so if someone specific (as opposed to your generic claims that don’t name names of the parties involved and times and dates) person claimed he was being unreasonable, he could then put the copies of the exchanges on his website. He has done so before. The specific case was not a dowser, but he posted the full exchange of emails on the topic and showed how it was the claimant who was uncooperative.
Another thing to notice about the Australian test you mention. Note that was conducted in July 1980. That is well before Randi formed the JREF and instituted the Million Dollar Challenge. So the particular complaint that they set up the grid of pipes and made the dowsers conform to that does not apply to the JREF Challenge. The tests for the JREF Challenge are designed after the claimant spells out the constraints of his ability. The particular test you mention was a generic test of dowsers, not a test of any particular dowser. If a particular dowser applies for the JREF Challenge, then the test will be designed to meet his needs.
Now, about the ideomotor effect. When someone asks if dowsing works, we say no. How do we know this? Because they can’t pass controlled tests. Then the person asks if dowsing doesn’t work, then why does the stick move so dramatically? _That_ is when the ideomotor effect is mentioned. It explains why there can be a dramatic visual signal when there is no mystical force at work. The ideomotor effect is an explanation for why the stick moves. How is it a disproof of dowsing? It isn’t directly. But if there is a non-paranormal explanation for why the stick moves that conforms to science, and there is a mystical explanation for why the stick moves that requires some change to science, then pointing out the reason the stick moves as opposed to the claimed reason is important. Sometimes people will jump to explaining why the stick moves first.
Now, for your claim that Randi is unfair, you need to find a specific example of someone who started the process and then backed out because Randi was not being fair with the test setup, and then list the specifics of how Randi was not being fair. What was he requiring in the test setup that was unfair? How was it unfair? Again, this isn’t _you_ guessing at what is unfair in someone else’s test, this is the person who applied and then backed out listing their reasons Randi was not fair. You could also or instead provide someone who did take the full test who now after the fact says it was unfair and explains why. But they have the further burden of explaining why they signed the documents that the test was fair the day they participated. No mamby pamby excuses that they couldn’t test unless they agreed. No shit. But they should have instead fought to get the test to where they could succeed, or backed out - which then puts them in case 1 where they need to show how Randi was being unfair to justify the claim.
Until then, your claim that Randi is being unfair is unfounded.
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2003, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/131 "2003-04-20T03:25:34Z")
Princhester said:
> [@](#):
>
> 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?
Easy answer.
I have never said that I believe in dowsing, quite the opposite in fact. Frojm my very first post I stated that if dowsing works at all it probably works by the dowsers getting subliminal clues from the geography, and that I’m not even convinced that works.
I am perfectly positive that most, or all dowsers are frauds, but also that James Randi is a fraud too. If there are any genuine dowsers (big if) then they wouldn’t have anything to do with Randi’s little games. The only people that would play along are cranks, frauds and optimistic beginners.
Why did they say they could detect the water in the pipes? Its because they were talking rubbish.
Understand?
I, however am open minded, and am willing to consider the slim possibility that dowsing works. The fact that 16 idiots failed Randi’s tests, which might indicate that those individuals can’t find pipes through dowsing. You cannot conclude from this test that NOBODY can find pipes through dowsing, and it says nothing at all about whether they, or others can find NATURAL underground water sources.
> [@](#):
>
> Your two other monetary prize examples are beneath contempt. …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.
You appear to have missed the point again. I am perfectly well aware that the moon site was intended as a joke, that was the point of me posting it. These offers are just as serious as Randi’s. The same flaws you see in these offers, I see in Randi’s tests.
I can’t believe you’re actually taking the evolution offer seriously.
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2003, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/132 "2003-04-20T04:01:58Z")
To Priceguy:
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > He sets people a test to find underground pipes. They fail. From this he concludes that they also can’t find underground rivers.
>
> I can’t find where he says that.
Upon rereading I discover that I was mistaken here. Skeptics in this forum have claimed Randi’s tests as proof that dowsing for natural underground water does not work. Randi himself, however, does not say that. I mistook the words of Rittersport and Musicat for those of the great man (ahem) himself. My bad.
> [@](#):
>
> He does, however, say that underground rivers are fictional, and so pretty hard to find in the first place.
Yes, he does say that. And you believe him?
Take a look at these links, for example :
[http://www.initaly.com/regions/abruzzo/uriver.htm](http://www.initaly.com/regions/abruzzo/uriver.htm)
[http://www.thingsasian.com/goto\_article/article.870.html](http://www.thingsasian.com/goto_article/article.870.html)
I grew up close to a river called the Mole, named because at certain points along its length it burrows underground, then resurfaces at another point. You can see its entry in an encyclopedia here: [http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/River\_Mole](http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Mole)
Look on Google, you will find thousands of examples of underground rivers.
James Randi claims that there is no such thing, that all of the examples of underground rivers are figments of the imagination.
Do you see why I have trouble taking him seriously?
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2003, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/133 "2003-04-20T04:28:00Z")
To Irishman:
> [@](#):
>
> Taking another tack…
>
> peter morris, your argument seems to be that dowsers claim that the locating of underground water is not by some mystical effect of the water upon the rod (or pendulum), but upon the person bearing the rod. Your claim seems to be that most dowsers understand the effect to be this way. Further, you claim that the real trick to dowsing is that the dowsers are picking up subtle clues from the surroundings and then making the rods move themselves.
>
> I scratch my head. If dowsers are just picking up subtle clues from the surroundings and making the rods move themselves, what about it is paranormal?
Nothing watsoever. I never claimed any paranormal explaination for dowsing, quite the reverse. From the beginning my point was that it might work, through perfectly normal means. I always did express doubt as to the paranormal explainations.
However, I see Randi’s tests as unfair for various reasons. My point has been condemnation of Randi, not support of dowsers.
---
### Author:  [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2003, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/134 "2003-04-20T11:25:39Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by peter morris \*
> Upon rereading I discover that I was mistaken here. Skeptics in this forum have claimed Randi’s tests as proof that dowsing for natural underground water does not work. Randi himself, however, does not say that. I mistook the words of Rittersport and Musicat for those of the great man (ahem) himself. My bad.
Indeed. As we have been saying right from your first post, you have a lot of strange ideas about what Randi does and does not do and say. A couple more pages of this thread and the reality of Randi and your views of him may begin to resemble one another.
> [@](#):
>
> Look on Google, you will find thousands of examples of underground rivers.
>
> James Randi claims that there is no such thing, that all of the examples of underground rivers are figments of the imagination.
>
> Do you see why I have trouble taking him seriously?
No I don’t. Where does he say that there is no such thing as underground rivers, at all? What he actually says is:
> [@](#):
>
> Besides, the “underground river”
> notion that dowsers maintain is sheer fiction, not supported at all by geological research.
In other words, he is not saying that there is no such thing as underground rivers, at all. As you point out, there are underground rivers. But many dowsers claim to find them everywhere. Indeed for example in the Australian tests two dowsers found two in a nondescript patch of land (though not in the same place, of course!).
What Randi is saying is that the notion of underground rivers _that dowsers maintain_ (ie that they are everywhere) is a fiction.
Once again your pathological distaste for all things Randi gets in the way of your comprehension of him. If you were to stop calling him names and actually read what he is saying you might learn something.
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by peter morris \*
> I am perfectly positive that most, or all dowsers are frauds, but also that James Randi is a fraud too. If there are any genuine dowsers (big if) then they wouldn’t have anything to do with Randi’s little games. The only people that would play along are cranks, frauds and optimistic beginners.
>
> Why did they say they could detect the water in the pipes? Its because they were talking rubbish.
>
> Understand?
Oh, I understand all right. As someone said before, I’ve seen your type before. Lekatt on psychics is just the same. Anyone who admits to being a fake, or is caught out when they can’t pass a controlled test, gets dismissed as an exception, a crank, an optimistic beginner. But somewhere, out there, on the edge of our vision, like mirages in the desert are the True Gifted Psychics and Diviners.
Out there. Somewhere.
I’m just sitting here, waiting with my open mind. But you don’t mind if I do something else while I’m waiting do you? It’s just that I think I may be waiting for some time…
> [@](#):
>
> I, however am open minded, and am willing to consider the slim possibility that dowsing works. The fact that 16 idiots failed Randi’s tests, which might indicate that those individuals can’t find pipes through dowsing. You cannot conclude from this test that NOBODY can find pipes through dowsing, and it says nothing at all about whether they, or others can find NATURAL underground water sources.
Indeed. I believe several sceptics myself included have stated just this.
But, peter, are you familiar with the invisible pink unicorn?
> [@](#):
>
> These offers are just as serious as Randi’s. The same flaws you see in these offers, I see in Randi’s tests.
That’s a parallel for you to illustrate and demonstrate. Something you have, so far, singularly failed to do.
> [@](#):
>
> I can’t believe you’re actually taking the evolution offer seriously.
That would be appropriate, given that I have never said or done anything to suggest that I do take it seriously. Indeed, quite the opposite.
You, however, are in a different position.
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by peter morris \*
> Nothing whatsoever. I never claimed any paranormal explanation for dowsing, quite the reverse. From the beginning my point was that it might work, through perfectly normal means. I always did express doubt as to the paranormal explanations.
So once again we are left asking, given that you don’t think real dowsers are doing anything paranormal, why you think that they deserve Randi’s prize, which is for proof of the paranormal?
> [@](#):
>
> However, I see Randi’s tests as unfair for various reasons. My point has been condemnation of Randi, not support of dowsers.
Are you going to give us these reasons anytime soon, or are we just going to be left to draw the obvious but unflattering (to you) conclusion?
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2003, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/135 "2003-04-20T13:56:26Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Indeed. As we have been saying right from your first post, you have a lot of strange ideas about what Randi does and does not do and say
Wrong. I read other people on this forum who claimed Randi said that. I took their word for it, instead of checking for myself. Save your scorn for the Randi lovers.
> [@](#):
>
> In other words, he is not saying that there is no such thing as underground rivers, at all.
As a matter of fact, that’s EXACTLY what he did say. He said that underground rivers are a ‘fiction’. You keep making excuses for him.
> [@](#):
>
> That would be appropriate, given that I have never said or done anything to suggest that I do take it seriously. Indeed, quite the opposite.
Yes you did. your words were \<\\>
You talk in terms of a ‘test’ being possible. Instead you should see it as a fundamentalist who refuses to see any evidence, no matter how strong. You are certainly taking the offer as though it were genuine.
> [@](#):
>
> So once again we are left asking, given that you don’t think real dowsers are doing anything paranormal, why you think that they deserve Randi’s prize, which is for proof of the paranormal?
I never said they deserved Randi’s prize, I said that Randi is a fraud and his offer of a prize is a publicity stunt to sell his books, not genuine offer at all, any more than the evolution or moon offer are genuine.
> [@](#):
>
> I’m just sitting here, waiting with my open mind.
No.
> [@](#):
>
> Are you going to give us these reasons anytime soon, or are we just going to be left to draw the obvious but unflattering (to you) conclusion?
Given repeatedly. You yourself, have admitted that tracing underground pipes is not a good test for whether someone can find natural underground water. Yet, having admitted that, you still cannot bear to admit that Randi’s tests are unfair.
---
### Author:  [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2003, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/136 "2003-04-20T14:49:55Z")
> [@](#):
>
> _originally posted by Peter Morris_
> …Randi’s tests are unfair.
OK, **Peter Morris,** how would _ **you** _ design a test for dowsing that would be fair to all parties and also an accurate measure of claimed ability?
---
### Author:  [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2003, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/137 "2003-04-20T15:08:09Z")
> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by peter morris_
> Upon rereading I discover that I was mistaken here. Skeptics in this forum have claimed Randi’s tests as proof that dowsing for natural underground water does not work. Randi himself, however, does not say that. I mistook the words of Rittersport and Musicat for those of the great man (ahem) himself. My bad.
I hope you don’t think it is nitpicking to protest about being misquoted, but I just re-read all my posts in this thread and I can’t find any place that I claimed that. What I _ **did** _ say is, and I think it bears repeating without alteration:
> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by Musicat_
> James Randi has done double-blinded tests of multiple dowsers on at least two occasions, I believe, details of which you can find on his web site. All the dowsers tested claimed they could trace the source of a small underground pipe network. 100% failed. Most didn’t even come close. All claimed (before the test) that conditions were satisfactory, ideal, and they could perform. Most claimed (after the test) that conditions were bad and something was “throwing them off,” as they had never failed before. I suggest they never had been tested under fair, unbiased conditions before.
---
### Author:  [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2003, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/138 "2003-04-20T18:46:41Z")
> [@](#):
>
> I am perfectly positive that most, or all dowsers are frauds, but also that James Randi is a fraud too.
One thing that I have noticed about cranks is that they do not seem to have any notion that calling someone a liar is offensive.
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2003, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/139 "2003-04-20T20:35:56Z")
One thing I’ve noticed about liars is that they do not seem to have any notion that calling someone a crank is offensive. 🙂
> [@](#):
>
> I hope you don’t think it is nitpicking to protest about being misquoted, but I just re-read all my posts in this thread and I can’t find any place that I claimed that. What I did say is, and I think it bears repeating without alteration: [snip quote]
Possibly I misunderstood you. The original questioner wrote about dowsing for natural underground water. Some of the respondants cited their own experience of the same. then you posted the above. Reading it, I thought that you saw some relevence in it to the topic under discussion. But I never claimed to be a mind reader, so it’s entirely possible that I misunderstood your purpose in posting the above.
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2003, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555/140 "2003-04-20T20:35:56Z")
One thing I’ve noticed about liars is that they do not seem to have any notion that calling someone a crank is offensive. 🙂
> [@](#):
>
> I hope you don’t think it is nitpicking to protest about being misquoted, but I just re-read all my posts in this thread and I can’t find any place that I claimed that. What I did say is, and I think it bears repeating without alteration: [snip quote]
Possibly I misunderstood you. The original questioner wrote about dowsing for natural underground water. Some of the respondants cited their own experience of the same. then you posted the above. Reading it, I thought that you saw some relevence in it to the topic under discussion. But I never claimed to be a mind reader, so it’s entirely possible that I misunderstood your purpose in posting the above.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555.md?page=6)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-dowsing-for-water-really-work/162555.md?page=8)