A poisoned well, huh? And how did you find that?
It’s a complicated process involving charcoal, black thread (this is key), 3 quarters from before 1993 and half a pound of hand ground argentinian coffee. It’s a foolproof method that works every time 50% of the time.
Seems like the quickest way to debunk a dowser is to challenge them to find a place to dig that won’t hit water.
He asked his rod. “Is this well good to drink?” and the rod didn’t dip. 
You certainly would. So what does it tell us when this doesn’t happen?
For those of you who know me all too well :rolleyes: this is a retread, but if anyone is seriously interested in the topic of dowsing and why it appears to work, I recommend starting first with a series of books by Kenneth Roberts, the historical novelist. First a short story ca. 1950, then three full length books, he details a fascination with water dowsing centered around a retired Maine game warden, Henry Gross (all participants are dead now, but the out of print books may be still available).
Henry Gross claimed to be able to find flowing, underground water anywhere in the world. He started with moving his rod over a map, even a crude one, followed by on site dowsing when possible. Roberts even set up a corporation, Water Unlimited, to sell Henry’s services for substantial fees, and documents the resulting experiences.
It’s a fascinating read. Roberts is a superb storyteller, and I think he genuinely believed in Henry’s powers. Most episodes were successful (they found water); the ones that were not are analyzed, but not from a skeptical angle. The water used to be there, the farmer didn’t follow instructions, the soil was foreign to Henry, or he got a stronger pull to the left; not considered was that the dowsing power was nothing more than wishful thinking.
It’s far more psychology than science. If anyone wants to pursue this to a considerable degree, PM me and I’ll give you the book names.
The short version of your story is two dowsers lucked out, one didn’t. You discount the one who missed as being a “blowhard” but let’s face it, you would have called him a dowser if he had hit more water.
Your post was all in the first person so I replied referring to you in the second person. I understand you weren’t talking about yourself. Maybe you could offer me the same understanding as you asked me to have of you?
You say my post was full of negative attitude but let’s look at the reality: the gist of your post was an assumption that dowsers would not be tested fairly. How negative is that? I’m being positive: I’m saying if someone can pass a fair test, then they should do it, not bleat about how they *would *be cheated if they tried.
Further, your post was basically JAQ’ing off. Your key rhetorical question was “Do I have to pass a test that you design that I never claimed I could do?” clearly implying the answer to be “yes”. Either provide evidence in support of that proposition or don’t, but don’t weasel by implying something by “Just Asking Questions”.
Personally, I found it rather unpleasant.
Boy, that is so not so.First person, second person? That is your reason for not answering my question?
I get official warnings for this kind of posting so that may explain a lot.
You are still not answering the question?
Which is: If you saw this yourself, would you still absolutely say it did not happen? Or could not happen, or whatever.
It is rather obvious that the comments towards the end were intended to clarify what many SDMB posters do instead of answering the question.
It would be the same question if the condition was that YOU were walked up to a Unicorn, which is not a reality, but you touched it, petted it, held onto the single horn, inspected where it went into the skull & the animal was for sure alive? Would you say, “Maybe I need to revise my opinion.”? Or would you discount this as insanity? Or something else, because you would know that all your senses would have to be broken for you to have seen, touched, etc. ?
People pose questions about impossible things all the time on SDMB. I don’t see you going around acting like you are now in this one. What is it about this question that sets you off so much?
Why did you even respond when you had no intention of answering the question?
If you claim it is all about my manner of asking, I politely call BS.
The OP was not hard to understand. Or are you going to claim that you could not figure it out? I politely call BS.
You have me really curious. 
Let me answer your question with a question: If you saw the concept debunked in controlled conditions, would you maintain that your belief—or whatever—was well founded?
I think—at this point—everyone is too invested in the argument, and I doubt these links will change any minds, but I’ll post them anyway.
~24 Minutes. James Randi TV show with simple tests.
~45 Minutes. James Randi using a more sophisticated test, similar to some described in this thread.
~5 Minutes. Richard Dawkins and Chris French with a simple test.
I suspect that—much like the dowsers who hold to their claims after failing their tests—this thread will continue despite numerous answers being given.
If you want a clear answer don’t poison the well or bury your question in barely coherent gobbledegook.
But I think, doing the best I can, the answer to your question is “No.” If someone could do something repeatedly that couldn’t be explained by cheating or a flaw in test design or whatever, then no I wouldn’t say that what I saw happening wasn’t happening.
Now do you know anyone who can show any scientifically inexplicable dowsing effect or not, and if not why bother with all this?
Science Shmience… I don’t really care… all i know is what my experience has taught me. I would not dig a well before consulting dowsers. But another thing I have learnt is there are dowsers and then there are dowsers.
The thing is, and this is what i was looking for: two or more separate people (dowsing) at different times finding a vein (or call it what you will) in the same exact place, digging the well there and finding abundant water. They both found other veins in different areas of the farm, one confirming the other. Both used wooden sticks.
The so-called dowser who told me to dig in a certain area, the first failed well, was not really a dowser, just someone playing with a pendulum whom I trusted being myself a noobie.
If I saw it happen in controlled conditions that eliminated the possibility of anything other than the dowsing rod actually detecting subterranean water, yeah, I might change my opinion. But when there’s half a dozen explanations that are more reasonable than “the dowsing rod actually detects subterranean water,” Occam’s razor applies.
It has also taught that there’s a sucker born every minute.
Is that the question you were asking? Because if so… shit, I missed it too.
I thought you were asking whether JREF would test people using deliberately wrong criteria. That’s what you seemed to be asking.
Classic confirmation bias. Do you mind if I quote this in future threads on the topic?
Which is why we have science, so we can tell the difference.
How many holes did they dig and NOT find water?
Reminds me of the old joke, “Why are you carrying that telephone pole around?”
“To keep away the elephants.”
“Silly! There are no elephants here!”
“See? It works?”
Ah, the “No True Scotsman” theory. Comes in handy, doesn’t it?
I wouldn’t have said it was confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is when you only see what you expect.
It’s more a form of mind bogglingly sad no true Scotsman. First you theorise that all true Scotsmen have no sugar on their porridge. Then you classify people as Scotsmen if they have no sugar on their porridge. Then you are able to point out that the data supports your theory 100%.
Not at all…
I don’t want to get into a whole story about this gentleman who befriended us and ended up mis-directing us about water (he has since passed on to the next world and you know what they say about talking about the dead).
The second person who confirmed the first person’s findings was the one with the well digging machine. He brought in the gusher as he continues to do. The first was a respected elderly gent from a small village, maybe a year before the second gentleman.
two holes. One on the basis of the first gentleman’s opinion, the second well was dug on the basis of two confirming opinions that i trusted.
I am not trying to convince, just relay my own experience. If you do not wish to trust this form of underground water searching, don’t use it. Continue with your opinion.
It is confirmation bias - where you regard confirming evidence as notable, and disregard counterexamples, but yes, it’s probably better described as No True Scotsman.