# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2008, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/81 "2008-11-03T14:36:46Z")
Do you have evidence that James Randi has made himself rich by his sceptic activities? ---
**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 3, 2008, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/82 "2008-11-03T15:36:50Z")
Yup, it’s easy to find that out. Information about thousands of organisations (including JREF) available at [http://www.guidestar.org/](http://www.guidestar.org/) You can see their recent IRS form 990s showing their financial information, income and expenditure. Registration is required, but it’s free. I can’t give a direct link because you need to log in. Please take a moment to register and look for yourself. The JREF takes in hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in donations and membership fees. Their main running expense is the salary that Randi pays himself, plus contributions to Randi’s pension fund, plus staff benefits, etc etc etc. About half of all donations go to pay JREF staff, and it appears that Randi is the only one actually paid, all the others are unpaid volunteers. I don’t know how much he makes from book sales and TV appearences. And while you’re at it, look at the financial information for CSI (aka CSICOP). Run by Paul Kurtz, annual salary $0, pension plan payments $0, staff benefits $0. This is because Paul Kurtz is running a public service, while Randi is after your money. ---
**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 3, 2008, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/83 "2008-11-03T15:38:27Z")
And, once again, can we please discuss dowsing WITHOUT bringing Randi into it? ---
**Author:** ![SiXSwordS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@SiXSwordS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SiXSwordS)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2008, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/84 "2008-11-03T15:54:59Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > .. [C]an we please discuss dowsing WITHOUT bringing Randi into it? Yes. The OP claims that this is a talent that can be learned using tools. Is this the case, or is dowsing a mental talent that one needs to be born with? ---
**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 3, 2008, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/85 "2008-11-03T16:23:27Z")
Dowsers claim that it is a skill that can be developed with practice. Some people are talented at it, and some aren’t, like any other skill. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2008, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/86 "2008-11-03T17:09:57Z")
**SiXSwordS** said: > [@](#): > > The OP claims that this is a talent that can be learned using tools. > > Is this the case, or is dowsing a mental talent that one needs to be born with? Just like different dowsers have different tools, different methods, and different claims about what they can find, they have different claims about how it works and what the power is. Some claim it is a learned skill of letting the tools find the water. Some claim it is a psychic ability that the tools amplify. Some probably even claim that it is a psychic ability, but anyone can learn it because everyone is psychic. **Peter Morris** said: > [@](#): > > The first and most important point is that the flaws are visible to most people the first time. They almost always spot problems during the initial negotiation. 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. Most of them refuse his test, because it is so obviously flawed. It is very rare for anyone to actually sign that agreement saying that it’s fair. The overwhelming majority can see that So has anyone actually documented this? Like kept written records of **all** negotiations, video/audio taped conversations, etc? Seems to me if I were going up someone so notorious for being obnoxious and unreasonable I would want a verifiable record I could then present to the world afterward to prove I was treated unfairly. ---
**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 3, 2008, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/87 "2008-11-03T21:45:37Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > And, once again, can we please discuss dowsing WITHOUT bringing Randi into it? Well, _some_ of us are trying. > [@Irishman](#): > > Just like different dowsers have different tools, different methods, and different claims about what they can find, they have different claims about how it works and what the power is. Some claim it is a learned skill of letting the tools find the water. Some claim it is a psychic ability that the tools amplify. Some probably even claim that it is a psychic ability, but anyone can learn it because everyone is psychic. No one has satisfactorily proved, to a scientific certainty, that the Loch Ness Monster exists, astrology has any value, or dowsing works. Until that is done, it is foolish to talk about “skills” or how they are “learned” or what the “ability” is. _There is no ability or skill yet demonstrated._ > [@Cecil](#): > > Congratulations, sucker. You’ve fallen victim to the classic Skeptical Young Guppy Becomes True Believer syndrome, described in great detail in a study of dowsing…published by two University of Chicago researchers in 1959. Everyone has read Cecil’s column, right? > [@](#): > > **Needless to say, dowsing is entirely a fraud,** although often an unconscious one. _Innumerable experiments_…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. (All bolding & italics are mine) > [@Peter Morris](#): > > The point is that “dry” is a relative term. There’s lots of factors to consider such as 1) yield 2) quality 3) ease of access, and these can all vary enormously in a short distance. Drill in one spot and get a thousand gallons per minute. Drill 100 metres away and get 20 GPM. Drill in one spot and the water is of good quality. In a different spot the water is brackish. In one spot you hit solid bedrock, in another spot it’s soft going. In one spot there’s water near the surface. In another spot it’s way, way down Now you’re moving the goalposts. We were talking about finding water. 1000 gpm is water. 20 GPM is, too. Water near the surface or brackish is still water (brackish water can be used for some purposes, like creating a pond). So, by your admission that “water” is easy to find, except for solid bedrock, it would be hard to NOT find it. Or are you now claiming that a dowsing rod can tell the difference between good and bad water or large and small yields (Henry Gross did, so don’t be afraid to admit it)? ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_fight\_the\_hypothetical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/59ef9b/32.png) [@Don\_t\_fight\_the\_hypothetical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_fight_the_hypothetical)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/88 "2008-11-04T00:03:14Z")
In the provided link: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/W95J85E7DNU/hqdefault.jpg "How to use divining rods") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W95J85E7DNU) It seems the rods act directly and instantly to water under them. Wouldn’t be as simple as blindfolding the dowser and move water under the rods to prove or disprove this? ---
**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 4, 2008, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/89 "2008-11-04T02:17:02Z")
> [@Don\_t\_fight\_the\_hypothetical](#): > > In the provided link: > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W95J85E7DNU](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W95J85E7DNU) > > It seems the rods act directly and instantly to water under them. No, they react to his hands moving them, consciously or not. Since his hands are holding them, it’s not a great leap to assume that his hands are the driving force. Why would you leap to the conclusion that there is some mysterious, undetectable force jumping over space when the obvious is so much closer? > [@](#): > > Wouldn’t be as simple as blindfolding the dowser and move water under the rods to prove or disprove this? That might be one way. Here are some others: [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/xOsCnX-TKIY/hqdefault.jpg "James Randi and a Dowser") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOsCnX-TKIY) [http://www.phact.org/e/z/kassel.htm](http://www.phact.org/e/z/kassel.htm) [http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=57](http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=57) [All the dowsers agreed that the test was fair, yet they all failed.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi_Educational_Foundation) [http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Dowsing/id/1894854](http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Dowsing/id/1894854) > **[Global Industry Market Sizing - NationMaster](https://www.nationmaster.com/)** > > Looking for country statistics? NationMaster gives access to market sizing and trends across 300 industry verticals and a global coverage. > [@](#): > > A study was undertaken in Kassel, Germany, under the direction of the Gesellschaft zur Wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften (GWUP) [Society for the Scientific Investigation of the Parasciences]. The three-day test of some 30 dowsers involved plastic pipes through which a large flow of water could be controlled and directed. The pipes were buried 50 centimeters under a level field. On the surface, the position of each pipe was marked with a colored stripe, so all the dowsers had to do was tell whether there was water running through the pipe. All the dowsers signed a statement agreeing this was a fair test of their abilities and that they expected a 100 percent success rate. However, the results were no better than what would have been expected by chance. One problem is you don’t want to give inadvertent clues as to where water is. Putting out 10 jugs under boxes, some with water, some without, and the placement of each decided by a coin toss, with the dowser under test not present when the jugs are placed, is pretty easy. In all such tests, the outcome was identical to chance when the test was blinded, but 100% accurate when not. Doesn’t that suggest the real reason for what is happening? ---
**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 4, 2008, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/90 "2008-11-04T03:07:13Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > [All the dowsers agreed that the test was fair, yet they all failed.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi_Educational_Foundation) Are you incapable of making a comment on dowsing without refering to James Randi? ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_fight\_the\_hypothetical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/59ef9b/32.png) [@Don\_t\_fight\_the\_hypothetical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_fight_the_hypothetical)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/91 "2008-11-04T03:13:06Z")
I don’t believe in dowsing. I was suggesting an easy way for the OP to test himself. After preview: This was for **Musicat** ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/92 "2008-11-04T04:30:12Z")
If the JREF will not agree to test the OP under conditions that are reasonable, then that would be a problem. I am not aware of examples of the JREF imposing unreasonable conditions on dowsing tests (or re-tests, for that matter), bald assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. It does occur to me that if I was a True Believer in a nonsensical (non) ability and someone wanted to test my ability under controlled conditions, vague complaints about testing protocols, and \*ad hominem \*attacks on the tester and his motivations would be made quite regardless of merit. Or perhaps I’m overly cynical. Assuming that there will be a problem with a testing protocol before the OP has even attempted to agree one would seem closed minded. For my part, I am looking forward to congratulating the OP on his imminent taking of the JREF prize. The more so since his ability seems to fit well with the JREF’s usual method of testing dowsers. The JREF is the leading tester of dowsers under controlled conditions as far as I know and I have no idea why any poster who is not a moderator would feel they have any authority to try to insist that the JREF’s activities and standing challenge not be raised in relation to this topic in this thread. ---
**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 4, 2008, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/93 "2008-11-04T05:59:49Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > If the JREF will not agree to test the OP under conditions that are reasonable, then that would be a problem. I am not aware of examples of the JREF imposing unreasonable conditions on dowsing tests (or re-tests, for that matter), bald assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. There’s no shortage of examples. The problem is that YOU simply refuse to see it. I’ve shown many examples of such in the past and your invariable response is la-la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you. 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. So she must declare a much higher success rate before he’s willing to test her. There were several other changes that he made to her application too. And while they were negotiating test he repeatedly insulted her, and generally acted like a pig. She found it impossible to negotiate with Randi. Most people do. They did not reach any agreement. She did not sign any declaration saying that the test was fair. Most people don’t. There are many other similar cases. > [@](#): > > The JREF is the leading tester of dowsers under controlled conditions as far as I know and I have no idea why any poster who is not a moderator would feel they have any authority to try to insist that the JREF’s activities and standing challenge not be raised in relation to this topic in this thread. The question is whether you have ANY contribution to make besides citing Randi. Do you have any thoughts of your own to offer, or are you just going to keep on parroting things that Randi said. Try and say something on the subject other than Randi. The fundamental problem is, Randi is the ONLY thing you have. If you stopped believing then you would be left with nothing at all. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/94 "2008-11-04T06:19:58Z")
The OP says he can do something and that he postively eager to be tested. The thing he says he can do is one that, as it happens, falls very squarely within the JREF’s usual method of testing dowsers. My contribution to the thread is to suggest that the OP be tested by the one organisation that is precisely set up to test what he says he can do, and by the way which will give him a million dollars for his efforts. I’m somewhat perplexed as to why this is not an appropriate contribution to be making to this OP. The rest seems to me to be a hijack. But anyway, there may be things that Randi will not agree to test because the claimed ability is too vague to be testable under controlled conditions when there is a million dollars at stake. He also sometimes makes mistakes. He is surrounded by people with various qualifications and areas of knowledge, and they usually correct him. Consequently his mistakes have little overall or long term relevance. He has been testing dowsers for long enough (and has done so enough times) that if his protocols at one time had any gross errors they would have been ironed out by now, but still no dowser has succeeded. Setting appropriate tests, and the negotiations required to do so, can be a difficult exercise. The topic is one prone to high levels of animosity and hyperbole, particularly from spectators and detractors. Without precise cites and exact quotes from prime sources I’m certainly not going to comment on specific cases. This extends to unilateral recollections concerning past discussions. ---
**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 4, 2008, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/95 "2008-11-04T06:52:39Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > He has been testing dowsers for long enough (and has done so enough times) that if his protocols at one time had any gross errors they would have been ironed out by now,. No, he just keeps making the same errors over and over and refusing to admit he’s wrong. The thing you have failed to understand is this. 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. The tests he runs are deliberately slanted in his own favour so that he can appear to win. He does it so that people like you will send him fan mail and give him money. As long as people give him fan letters and money, he doesn’t care if the tests are fair or not. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/96 "2008-11-04T06:54:45Z")
Bald assertions and opinion noted. > [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > He does it so that people like you will send him fan mail and give him money. His strategy isn’t working in my case. ---
**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 4, 2008, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/97 "2008-11-04T07:01:32Z")
You’ve sent him fan mail, haven’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/98 "2008-11-04T07:06:42Z")
Don’t think so. Do you have anything to add to the OP? ---
**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 4, 2008, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/99 "2008-11-04T07:16:32Z")
You dont THINK so? Don’t you know? I seem to recall a fan letter from “Princhester” being published on Randi’s web site. Was that you? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954/100 "2008-11-04T07:21:05Z")
[http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-12/121506russell.html](http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-12/121506russell.html) If it makes you happy to call this a fan letter then feel free. I wouldn’t call it that because I was merely corresponding with him on an item of mutual interest, rather than expressing any admiration etc. Do you have anything useful to say about the OP, or has this descended into a discussion about me, a topic in which I have little interest. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finding-water-with-coat-hangers/468954.md?page=6)