# Finding water with coat hangers **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [October 21, 2008, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954 "2008-10-21T21:55:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/181 "2008-11-07T01:00:39Z")
So only a scientist can design one. You hold extremely firm views on what a test _shouldn’t_ comprise. Do you accept that you’re not, in your view, actually qualified to comment on that? ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/182 "2008-11-07T01:41:17Z")
Stop threadshitting. ---
**Author:** ![geniios](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9d8465/32.png) [@geniios](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/geniios)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/183 "2008-11-07T02:19:54Z")
Rank has it’s privledges doesn’t it? > [@Jackmannii](#): > > I sometimes douse my Labrador retriever, but only when she gets really rank. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/184 "2008-11-07T02:32:18Z")
I don’t think that being a “scientist” (in any formal sense) is a necessary prerequisite to designing a suitable test. Basic scientific principles are not particularly complicated. Some of the greatest scientists (early ones) did their work before there was any such thing as studying science in a formal sense. They learned by doing and self study. Someone who has done a lot of tests, and who has studied their particular subject matter, and who has a basic understanding of logic can do it. The more so if they are surrounded by others who also have an interest, to offer suggestions and criticisms. No one runs a dowsing test alone. I also don’t believe that anyone who has for a number of years been publically offering extensive and strident opinions on test design _actually_ believes that you have to be a “scientist” to be able to design a test, or they wouldn’t be offering their opinions so boldly. ---
**Author:** ![SiXSwordS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@SiXSwordS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SiXSwordS)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/185 "2008-11-07T14:54:54Z")
I’ve contacted the OP, who was very polite, and we discussed the possibilty of giving a demonstration, but he lives too far away. I’ve sent out e-mails to nearby clubs, but haven’t yet gotten a response. I’ve tried this myself with coat hangers, but the thread has quite obviously skewed toward a discussion of valid tests and, as I am not psychic and did not perform an even slightly valid test, I will skip the results. However: > [@geniios](#): > > .. He’s still alive if you want him to, I am sure he would oblige, he’s a gentleman. btw he does not charge for it This I am very interested in. What is a preferred method for contacting you? My e-mail is in my profile and I think PM is working… whatever works for you. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/186 "2008-11-07T17:19:15Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > I don’t think that being a “scientist” (in any formal sense) is a necessary prerequisite to designing a suitable test. Basic scientific principles are not particularly complicated. … Someone who has done a lot of tests, and who has studied their particular subject matter, and who has a basic understanding of logic can do it. Since you think it’s so easy, lets see YOU do it then. This is all about challenging people to prove their claims, and I think you should be required to prove yours. If anyone who has a basic understanding of logic can do it, I’m interested to see what kind of a job you would make of it. After all, you are rather more intelligent than Randi is, so if he can do it, you should find it easy. Lets see YOUR design for a test of the OP’s claims. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/187 "2008-11-07T17:29:59Z")
> [@SiXSwordS](#): > > … I am not psychic… Don’t be embarrassed. Since no one else is, either, you’re in good company. ---
**Author:** ![SiXSwordS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@SiXSwordS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SiXSwordS)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/188 "2008-11-07T18:06:26Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Don’t be embarrassed. Since no one else is, either, you’re in good company. I knew you were going to say that. ---
**Author:** ![MarcusF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/67e7ee/32.png) [@MarcusF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarcusF)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/189 "2008-11-07T18:11:05Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Then you test their claim. See if they actually can find septic tanks underground. > > Go to some property with an underground septic tank, with the owner’s permission, have the dowser mark where he thinks the water lines or septic tank lies, then check the architect’s plans to see if he got it right.. Definitely not - this is nothing like an effective test of the claim. As others have pointed out there are way to many other stimulii that could clue the subject in on where the tank is other than dowsing. > [@](#): > > Your link doesn’t work. I don’t know the test you mean. But why would you assume that there’s anything wrong with it? Tests run by persons other than Randi are sometimes valid. > > Perhaps you are under the impression that I’m advocating dowsing. I’m not. I never have. I make no claim that dowsers would succeed in a fair test. To make this clear, I have several reasons to object to Randi, specifically, which don’t apply to other people running tests. Sorry about the link - my mistake. Try [Link](http://www.phact.org/e/z/kassel.htm) My concern was that as Randi was involved in the design of the experiment you would reject it out of hand but I would put forward the design of the water experiment, as described in the paper, as a fair methodology for testing claims of dowsing. It seems to be looking for precisely the ability the OP is claiming - detecting pipes with water flowing through them - and it is double blind in that neither the subject nor the experimenters know which pipe has water flowing. ---
**Author:** ![fubarassociation](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b4bc9f/32.png) [@fubarassociation](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fubarassociation)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/190 "2008-11-07T18:32:13Z")
So, can the blind (visually impaired) not be good at dowsing? And I wonder if there has ever been an experiment where the dowsing “expert” showed the experimentee how to use the rods, except starting out with the rods crossed or keep them continuously moving (or whatever the indicator of water is) until they uncross or stop moving, and then compare the accuracy of this opposite method to the regular method. Would that be able to show that, at the very least, it’s not the sticks that are finding the water? ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/191 "2008-11-07T19:10:03Z")
> [@MarcusF](#): > > It seems to be looking for precisely the ability the OP is claiming - detecting pipes with water flowing through them - and it is double blind in that neither the subject nor the experimenters know which pipe has water flowing. Another test was held in Formello, Italy, in 1979. Randi describes it only briefly [here (scroll down more than halfway)](http://www.randi.org/jr/111502.html), but there is a detailed account with drawings and several pictures in his book _Flim-Flam!_. These tests are expensive and complicated to set up, requiring backhoes, trucks with dirt fill, plumbers, pipes, valves, large layouts and above all, secrecy for several days at least. And even then, they are cheaper than having a well driller sink a dozen holes. Sure, they represent an environment more similar to water flowing underground than static water jugs, but the difference in costs to conduct the tests is substantual. If you can devise a test that all participants agree is fair but as cheap as 10 throwaway water bottles, you will stand a greater chance of having it take place. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/192 "2008-11-07T20:21:07Z")
Here’s a video on dowsing produced by Scientific American Frontiers: [http://vvi.onstreammedia.com:80/cgi-bin/visearch?squery=+ClipID:2++VideoAsset:pbssaf802&query=&user=pbs-saf&tid=email](http://vvi.onstreammedia.com:80/cgi-bin/visearch?squery=+ClipID:2++VideoAsset:pbssaf802&query=&user=pbs-saf&tid=email) There are multiple tools used, several dowsers shown, and some use more than one: the traditional forked stick, an “artificial” forked stick, pendulums, coat hangers unaltered, coat hangers altered and held in different ways, and twin L-rods. It’s a good illustration of the variety of techniques. They dowse for a water well, for lead, and for pipe segments. The results? Not very impressive, to say the least. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/193 "2008-11-07T21:59:49Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > I’ve already said that protocol design should be left up to a scientist who is experienced in designing tests. Scientists who were experienced in designing tests conclude that Uri Geller bent spoons with psychic powers. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/194 "2008-11-07T22:22:15Z")
I notice you cut out my comments about peer review. That’s rather disingenuous of you. The peer review found several flaws in the test. And that gives a more solid debunking of Uri Geller than anything Randi has ever done. By the way, they scientists in question actually were convinced by Geller’s reproduction of drawings they made. They explicitly stated that they were not convinced by his spoon bending. Lets be accurate here. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/195 "2008-11-07T22:33:18Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > I notice you cut out my comments about peer review. That’s rather disingenuous of you. The peer review found several flaws in the test. And that gives a more solid debunking of Uri Geller than anything Randi has ever done. So the peer review came after the protocols were designed, but before the tests? I did not know that. > [@](#): > > By the way, they scientists in question actually were convinced by Geller’s reproduction of drawings they made. They explicitly stated that they were not convinced by his spoon bending. Lets be accurate here. Thanks for the correction. If a man claims to be able to jump 3 feet straight up, is testing his ability to jump 2 feet straight up a fair test? ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/196 "2008-11-07T22:40:22Z")
Okay, **Peter** , your Randi fixation is getting old. You said: > [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > And Randi always acts like a pig, refuses to compromise, just simply tells them that they will either be tested under his conditions, or not at all. And then later in that same post, you add > [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Do you think you can discuss dowsing without citing James Randi? Do you have anything to contribute to the thread without talking about him? Very valid comment. Let’s see if we can talk about dowsing without bringing Randi into it. A quick scan of your posts _after_ saying you don’t want anyone to talk about Randi shows: > [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > This is because Paul Kurtz is running a public service, while Randi is after your money. > [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > And, once again, can we please discuss dowsing WITHOUT bringing Randi into it? > [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > But just to remind you of one example, there was one applicant who claimed that she could use the power of her mind to cause a candle flame to flicker. She said that it only worked occasionally, about one time in three. Randi’s response: he could not accept the one time in three. According to Randi, less than 50% success isn’t paranormal. > [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Randi isn’t interested in testing people’s claims. He doesn’t care if dowsing works or not. He’s not interested if people can, or can’t do what they say. What he wants is to gain publicity and money for himself. > [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > I seem to recall a fan letter from “Princhester” being published on Randi’s web site. Was that you? > [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Childish snarkfights is what Randi is all about. > [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Say something original, something that comes from your own mind, anything other than what Randi told you, or shut up. > [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Hey, you’re willing to accept Randi’s word without evidence. In fact you’re perfectly happy to turn a blind eye when he’s obviously lying. > [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > To make this clear, I have several reasons to object to Randi, specifically, which don’t apply to other people running tests. > > Two reasons among many for objecting to him: > > 1. He is frequently seen to cheat. This only makes dowsers seem more plausible to the public, and damages the reputation of decent sceptics. > > 2. People are sometimes persuaded by his lies to give him money. These people are victims of a scam. > [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > The baseline test serves precisely one purpose. It is there to give Randi an excuse when his misbehaviour in the test is exposed. If the participant scores 100% on the baseline test, then Randi can dismiss every complaint made against him. > [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > After all, you are rather more intelligent than Randi is, so if he can do it, you should find it easy. > [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > The peer review found several flaws in the test. And that gives a more solid debunking of Uri Geller than anything Randi has ever done.. Here’s a novel thought for you. If you don’t want to talk about Randi, then **stop talking about Randi**. Otherwise, stop ragging on everyone else about it. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/197 "2008-11-07T23:08:46Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > So the peer review came after the protocols were designed, but before the tests? I did not know that. No, the peer review always comes after the tests. As I understand it, the term \*peer review \* refers to the process of getting the results published in a respectable scientific journal. The test is performed, conclusions are made, the report is written, then submitted to the journal. The editors of the journal appoint several reviewers to check the report. The reviewers examine the methodology and the conclusions, see if there’s any errors there. They might reject it outright as flawed, or might ask for revisions to the report. When they are satisfied (if they ever are) it gets published, and the scientific community can review it, and either support or rebut the conclusions. In the case of the Uri Geller tests, it was published in Nature, but with some negative comments from the editors and reviewers, then attacked by the rest of the scientific community. > [@](#): > > Thanks for the correction. You’re welcome > [@](#): > > If a man claims to be able to jump 3 feet straight up, is testing his ability to jump 2 feet straight up a fair test? What has that got to do with anything? ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/198 "2008-11-07T23:14:20Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > Okay, **Peter** , your Randi fixation is getting old. :rolleyes: so Randi supporters talk about Randi, on and on and on, over and over, talk about nothing else, have nothing else to say about the subject besides quoting from the gospel acording to St James. I respond to them, and that makes ME fixated? > [@](#): > > Here’s a novel thought for you. If you don’t want to talk about Randi, then **stop talking about Randi**. Otherwise, stop ragging on everyone else about it. I am responding to other people talking about him. It is not me who keeps bringing him up. I would really like it if they would talk about something else. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/199 "2008-11-07T23:17:36Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > No, the peer review always comes after the tests. So peer review has nothing to do with whether scientists are the only folks who can design a proper test, right? > [@](#): > > What has that got to do with anything? Unless I misunderstand, your complaint is that finding water in jugs above ground in broad daylight has nothing to do with finding water in caverns hundreds of feet underground. Let me ask it another way. If a man claims to be able to jump straight up to the top of the Matterhorn, is it fair to ask him to pass a preliminary test by jumping 20 feet straight up, and avoid the logistical problems associated with traveling to Switzerland? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/200 "2008-11-07T23:29:29Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > :rolleyes:I am responding to other people talking about him. It is not me who keeps bringing him up. Your response to me mentioned Randi. I said nothing at all about him. I was talking about SRI. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954.md?page=11)