# James Randi - sincere skeptic or money-grubbing fraud? (dowsing) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 21, 2003, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-sincere-skeptic-or-money-grubbing-fraud-dowsing/169999 "2003-04-21T09:44:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2003, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-sincere-skeptic-or-money-grubbing-fraud-dowsing/169999/1 "2003-04-21T09:44:36Z")
Back in this thread ([Does dowsing for water really work?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?&threadid=170935)) in Comments on Cecil’s Columns there is a discussion of dowsing. On page2, **peter morris** shows up and starts claiming that James Randi is a fraud, just using the JREF Million Dollar Challenge as a publicity stunt, with no real intention to pay. Further, he claims that Randi misrepresents the claims of dowsers and then debunks the strawmen he creates, rather than addressing the real claims of dowsers. Because the topic diverged from dowsing onto Randi and JREF, I’m creating this thread so we can continue the discussion. I said: > [@](#): > > **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? **peter morris** said: > [@](#): > > 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. Then I don’t see what your problem with Randi is. The JREF Challenge is for any paranormal feat. If dowsers agree they are really detecting water via some natural process, then they don’t qualify for the challenge. But if they think they are using a paranormal process, then testing the supposed process is valid, even if it precludes the non-claimed natural process. In fact, it _must_ eliminate the known and explainable natural process as a possibility, to test the paranormal aspect. So do dowsers claim to be reading the terrain and picking out clues, or do they claim to be using paranormal abilities? You’ve been addressing only dowsers searching for water, specifically natural underground water sources. What about dowsers who claim to be able to find gold, brass, quartz, coins, buried archeological ruins, “ley lines”, and just about anything else? What are dowsers doing when they dowse crop circles? How can they use clues from the terrain to find 17th century buried treasure? Are they deluded? How do _you_ distinguish them from the ones who claim to find water, when the claimed mechanism is the same, and it’s often the same people? > [@](#): > > However, I see Randi’s tests as unfair for various reasons. My point has been condemnation of Randi, not support of dowsers. Your justification for Randi’s tests being unfair are that Randi uses buried water pipes instead of natural water sources, and you claim that Randi misrepresents what dowsers claim so he can attack the strawman. Regarding the misrepresentation of the claim, you pick statements of Randi’s explaining the ideomotor effect, and how very small, unconscious motions of the dowser are what cause the rods to move. You claim that dowsers themselves also claim that the cause of the rod movement is subconsious movements of their own. Your links have some flaws. [http://damkar.org/mudra2.html](http://damkar.org/mudra2.html) > [@](#): > > The nature of our thoughts and emotions are reflected in ideodynamic movements of the hands that are normally visible with their gestures, but that at times goes unnoticed or is invisible to the naked eye. Proof of this may be found in the occult art of dowsing where the imperceptible movement of the hand as motored by nerve impulses causes a pendulum to sway under direction of an unseen subconscious intelligence–the pendulum merely acting as an amplifier for the conscious aspect of the psyche. This is the sum total of discussion of dowsing on that site. It is not clear from the context that this reflects the dowser’s beliefs of their art. It is not clear if this is a synthesis of ideas including the descriptions from dowsing skeptics wrapped in mysticism. [your other link](http://www.datadiwan.de/SciMedNet/library/articlesN66+/9804271950.htm) > [@](#): > > It is almost universally accepted that dowsing is a neurophysiological response and that the rods or pendulums are only present as a mechanical amplifier of otherwise unnoticeable small tilts and movements of the hand. The material and type of the rod doesn’t matter… The most common response is a subtle twitch of the wrist or arm, and learning to hold the rods with a particular extension and tension in various muscle groups is used to increase the magnitude of the response. I read the link, and it’s not clear from context when this explanation became “almost universally accepted” with dowsers. I submit that it is only recently, in response to the skeptics explaining the ideomotor effect. The dowsers have taken that and tried to incorporate it into their theories. > [@](#): > > In 1556 a German metallurgical text commented on the common use of dowsing to detect metallic ores while the author, AGRICOLA, pointed out that the dowsing instrument did not move of its own accord, but only in the hands of sensitive persons. That statement is stand alone. Your interpretation is that it shows dowsers accepting the ideomotor effect as part of the process. All it really says is that “sensitive persons” must hold the instruments. It doesn’t explain what they are sensitive to, or how their sensitivity affects the instruments. Furthermore, this site also says: > [@](#): > > It is worth noting that a minority of dowsers dislike the neurophysiological viewpoint and feel certain that the rods move independently of the dowser, perhaps as a form of psychokinesis (PK). Admittedly it says “minority”, but again this is within the context that this is a recent acceptance of ideomotor effect and trying to incorporate it in “scientific” explanations of dowsing as a real phenomenon. Note that **you** the one claiming that dowsers only expect dowsing to work on natural water sources. From the same site: > [@](#): > > This reflects the fact that it was traditionally known as water divining and was a commercially important means of locating water and minerals, but it is often used today to detect a much wider range of apparently ‘unknowable’ information, from medical diagnosis to the location of lost objects. And especially this one! > [@](#): > > Novice dowsers find it relatively easy to detect steel and other electrically conducting materials, geological water, (particularly moving water), but they often find the results very confusing as there are too many responses and they cannot tell the difference between them. Experienced dowsers can detect almost anything at any distance, **probably by utilizing psi capabilities** , but minerals, oil, and disturbed ground such as archaeological sites and caves seem to be relatively easy. Wet sands and clays seem to reduce the ‘penetration’ of the dowsing ability through the ground. > > The situation is confused for the novice by the tendency of buried structures (e.g. a pipeline) to create a series of parallel dowsing lines, similar, though not identical, to diffraction pattern. **However, with experience the dowser learns to ‘focus on the question’ and can then get a reaction only at the centre line, without being confused by the parallels.** Both boldings mine. The first emphasizes the effect is through psi, as opposed to natural reading of terrain. The second states that experienced dowsers can read pipelines. See, your objection to Randi using pipes is ill-founded. Your own cite says dowsers can read pipelines. So tell me again how Randi’s tests using pipes are not fair? Which still ignores the fact that the dowsers themselves who were being tested claimed they could find the water in the pipe, and got to pretest for themselves they could find the water running in the buried pipe where they knew it was running, and agreed that they detect it. They even felt they were detecting it during the test. How is it unfair to test someone about something they claim they can do? I notice something else: you’re busy complaining about Randi using pipes in the ground, but don’t say anything about the Barn Study (the German study on dowsing linked by [skepdic](http://skepdic.com/dowsing.html) that you provided). The funny thing is, dowsers like to claim it provides evidence that dowsing works. But the barn study _was conducted in a barn_! They ran the test on the second story of the barn, with the pipes under the floor so they could be reconfigured from below. If dowsers accept a study conducted in pipes in a barn, how can they object to a study with pipes buried in the ground? You also state that testing dowsers using water in pipes says nothing about their ability to find natural water. Yes and no. The dowsers’ claims on how they detect water do not rely on picking up subconscious visual cues from terrain. They rely on picking up ley lines or other mystical terms, psychic signals their subconscious picks up. To dowsers, there is no difference in how dowsing works on natural water versus water in pipes, or between water versus gold versus tin (see above link) or anything else. To them it is the same thing. Randi sets out to test the paranormal claim. So the tests are designed to eliminate the physical terrain clues and such that the dowsers claim are irrelevant to their ability. The whole point is to test the psychic claim. You must eliminate the known causes for contamination (other information not directly related to the claimed source of information) in order to test properly. Now I suppose one might want to test the visual terrain clues idea. Fine. But that’s not applicable to the JREF Challenge, which only applies to paranormal abilities. **peter morris** said: > [@](#): > > 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. You have yet to provide evidence to back that up. For example, I previously asked you to provide a cite of someone who applied for the JREF Challenge and then backed out because Randi was being unfair, or someone who applied and failed the test and now is claiming Randi was unfair. Not just rumors of incidents, but names and dates (or at least approximate dates) so that we can verify what happened. And not just gripes, but descriptions of what was unfair and why it was unfair, and perhaps documentation (such as emails, letters, etc.) And that’s descriptions from the claimant, not from you. I want why they think it was unfair. Now as for evidence he is sincere, the JREF has about $1.1 Million in the bank in bonds specifically designated for the prize money. You can verify it yourself. Go to the JREF page and they give you the necessary information to contact the bank and verify it. When there is a test for the prize, Randi brings a cashier’s check for the immediately payable amount (IIRC $10,000) which he gives to the neutral third party to hand over to the winner. If the claimant passes the test, they take that money home right then, and the rest of the prize money follows. That does not sound like the actions of a pure publicity stunt, that sounds like a sincere offer to pay. Is the challenge about publicity? Certainly. The whole point of the JREF is to reach as wide an audience as possible to teach about the paranormal and the lack of proof for it. But the money is in the bank and ready to pay out. So how is Randi a fraud? Because he hasn’t paid it yet to anyone? Nobody has passed the Challenge. Does that mean the tests are rigged so nobody _can_ pass? That’s your claim, but no evidence. The point of the tests is to eliminate cheating (intentional or unintentional) so the only way to pass is to have paranormal abilities. Does Randi expect to ever have to pay out? No. Not because he rigs the tests (how can he rig the tests when the claimants have just as much control as he does over how they are set up and judged?), but because he doesn’t believe paranormal abilities exist. But So What? The money is there, and the test is designed to the claims of the applicant and the applicant gets control to ensure they are comfortable with the setup and can perform. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary. The only evidence you have provided is that Randi’s tests don’t match how _you_ think dowsing works. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2003, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-sincere-skeptic-or-money-grubbing-fraud-dowsing/169999/2 "2003-04-21T11:20:21Z")
> [@](#): > > Your justification for Randi’s tests being unfair are that Randi uses buried water pipes instead of natural water sources, and you claim that Randi misrepresents what dowsers claim so he can attack the strawman. As I noted in my contribution to that thread, the idea of testing a dowser by building a platform under which a hose could run actually came from a book that is _pro_-dowsing. It’s cited by Martin Gardner in the chapter on dowsing in his book **Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science**. Gardner’s criticism was that, although this dowsing booster proposed the experiment, he didn’t actually follow through on it. Gardner never followed through, either, AFAIK, but Randi did. In collaboration with Italian television RAI they did a test where the built a set of three paths od PVC tubing, had it properly surveyed, then buried it. Then they had the dowsers come and, one at a time, try to locate the paths of the pipes through which the water was running. He describes this in detail in his 1980 book **Flim-Flam!** , and has done it at least once since. The dowsers agreed to the test conditions in advance. So from the very start this method was the idea of dowsing folk, and it has been approved by the dowsers tested by it. Some may disagree about it, but it’s clear that not all dowsers think this an unfair test, and certainly it’s not an evil misrtepresentation devised by an enemy of the faith. ---
**Author:** ![Philster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@Philster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philster)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2003, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-sincere-skeptic-or-money-grubbing-fraud-dowsing/169999/3 "2003-04-21T12:31:33Z")
Before being tested, the applicants must agree to the test. In other words, they must agree it is fair and that it will test a specific ability they claim to have. Randi does not run the tests. Dowsing is also one in which Randi has had the most applicants, and after failing most offer excuses. Dowsers get hits at rates no better than random chance. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2003, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-sincere-skeptic-or-money-grubbing-fraud-dowsing/169999/4 "2003-04-21T14:37:56Z")
Sounds like **peter morris** has an axe to grind. The edge to his argument is certainly not keen. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2003, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-sincere-skeptic-or-money-grubbing-fraud-dowsing/169999/5 "2003-04-21T15:46:32Z")
Sure, there does seem to be “something” to dowsing in that experienced dowsers can find water in an area they know fairly reliably. But as some have said- it is most likely that they are relying upon environmental clues- some of which they may perceive subconsiously. Clearly, these clues will fail in the “Randi” test. However- Randi is not testing the subconsious environmental perceptions of the dowsers- he is testing their claims of paranormal abilities. He set up a doubleblind test, gets the testees to agree to it- then runs it- and then the dowsers fail(although in one instance I saw, the results of one dowser in one test was pretty amazing.) Does Randi expect them to fail? Does he expect to keep his cash? Certainly- just as much as the dowsers expect to succeed, and get the cash. Are they also being “money grubbing frauds” because of their motives? If all “dowsing” does is allow your mind to concentrate upon subtle clues your fully consious mind would otherwise not see- it is still pretty amazing. There is no need for paranormal or magic abilities. ---
**Author:** ![RexDart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b77776/32.png) [@RexDart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RexDart)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2003, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-sincere-skeptic-or-money-grubbing-fraud-dowsing/169999/6 "2003-04-21T15:55:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DrDeth \* > \*\*He set up a doubleblind test, gets the testees to agree to it- then runs it- > \*\* Sorry for the brief hijack, but I want to ask something quick if I can. I’m always reading the term “double-blind” study in _Skeptical Inquirer_, and I can kind of infer what it means from the way it’s used, but I’ve never seen a simple definition of what constitutes a “double-blind” test. Can someone help me out on that point? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2003, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-sincere-skeptic-or-money-grubbing-fraud-dowsing/169999/7 "2003-04-21T16:05:30Z")
A double-blind test means that both the subject and ttester are unaware of certain data… For instance, in the dowsing experiment above, the location of the buried hoses would not be disclosed to either the dowser or to the person running the test (a third party would bury the hoses). This way, there is no chance that the tester could give away unconscious hints about important information. Some “psychics” are good at reading body language and other non-verbal clues. “Blinding” the tester prevents that. ---
**Author:** ![Philster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@Philster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philster)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2003, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-sincere-skeptic-or-money-grubbing-fraud-dowsing/169999/8 "2003-04-21T18:37:41Z")
DrDeth, having a dowser come up big one time can be considered an anomoly The feat must be repeatable. Even with random chance, if you test enough people, even those who have no desire to find water, you’ll end up with someone who actually finds water at a rate greater than random chance. Odds are, if it was dumb luck, it won’t happen again. ---
**Author:** ![Podkayne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Podkayne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Podkayne)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2003, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-sincere-skeptic-or-money-grubbing-fraud-dowsing/169999/9 "2003-04-21T21:56:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DrDeth \* > \*\*Sure, there does seem to be “something” to dowsing in that experienced dowsers can find water in an area they know fairly reliably. \*\* I was under the impression that, in most areas, pretty much _anywhere_ you dig, if you go deep enough, you’ll find water. Is there any evidence that dowsers really do better than chance? (And, just to head off a lot of pointless posts, let’s avoid the anecdotes and stick with actual studies.) ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2003, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-sincere-skeptic-or-money-grubbing-fraud-dowsing/169999/10 "2003-04-21T23:35:44Z")
They agreed to the fairness of the tests before they took them. Grousing afterwards about them being Fixed is sour grapes.:mad: ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-sincere-skeptic-or-money-grubbing-fraud-dowsing/169999/11 "2003-04-22T01:04:37Z")
If **peter morris** waves his little stick around, could he find this thread? There isn’t much of a debate if everyone here (including me) agrees that dowsing is crap. ---
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-sincere-skeptic-or-money-grubbing-fraud-dowsing/169999/12 "2003-04-22T04:42:55Z")
In the very least, I fail to see the “money-grubbing” part. It’s not like Randi is franchanising. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-sincere-skeptic-or-money-grubbing-fraud-dowsing/169999/13 "2003-04-22T06:20:32Z")
Randi may well be money grubbing, which is to say he may well be no less and no more money grubbing than any other person who is very good at what they do, and makes money accordingly. A top professional sportsperson might well be very money grubbing. But whether they are motivated by the money or by pure sportsmanlike values does not affect whether or not they are a good player. The only issue, therefore, is whether Randi is good at what he does or not. I’m happy to debate that, but moneygrubbingness is just red herring. ---
**Author:** ![Doc\_Nickel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@Doc\_Nickel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doc_Nickel)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-sincere-skeptic-or-money-grubbing-fraud-dowsing/169999/14 "2003-04-22T19:18:33Z")
Further, for Randi to be a “moneygrubbing fraud”, since Randi’s pastime is semi-professionally (via book and lecture) debunking pseudoscience and quackery… well, for him to be a ‘fraud’ would mean that Randi would _actually believe_ in the stuff. Edwards, on the other hand, IS a moneygrubbing fraud, since I (well, in my opinion anyway) can’t imagine he literally thinks what he does is authentic. He knows full well he’s found a lucrative scam and he’s milking it for all it’s worth. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-sincere-skeptic-or-money-grubbing-fraud-dowsing/169999/15 "2003-04-22T22:02:40Z")
**Podkayne** , evidence in controlled tests? The best I’ve seen is the Barn study liked from the skepdic article. You can imagine how good it is if skepdic links it. 😉 Seriously, the Barn study was a German test of dowsing with some results that were interesting but non-repeatable. They got the best dowsers they could find and had them dowse the second floor in a barn for pipes under the floor. The water could be diverted into different pipes, at random. Various dowsers had good and bad results, but the ones who passed one test would then fail the next. In other words, lucky shots that didn’t repeat. And dowsers use that study to justify dowsing works. One of those other links mentions a 10 year case study of dowsing, but was a collection of dowsing results from use in the field, with no controls and no information about how data was collected. So it’s really not better than anecdotal evidence. I do wish **peter morris** would show up so this thread isn’t wasted. I just couldn’t continue the discussion in that thread after the moderator called the Randi stuff off limits. ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-sincere-skeptic-or-money-grubbing-fraud-dowsing/169999/16 "2003-04-23T00:39:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Doc Nickel \* > \*\*Further, for Randi to be a “moneygrubbing fraud”, since Randi’s pastime is semi-professionally (via book and lecture) debunking pseudoscience and quackery… well, for him to be a ‘fraud’ would mean that Randi would _actually believe_ in the stuff. > > Edwards, on the other hand, IS a moneygrubbing fraud, since I (well, in my opinion anyway) can’t imagine he literally thinks what he does is authentic. He knows full well he’s found a lucrative scam and he’s milking it for all it’s worth. \*\* Not that I’m in any way trying to defame or cast doubt on the work of James Randi (one of the names on my Coolest People Ever list; just got a whole pile of books autographed by the man the other day), but it seems to me that even if he doesn’t believe in the paranormal, he could still qualify as a ‘fraud’ if he were rigging his tests to disallow any possibility of success–say, for example, if a “dowser” took him up on his challenge and managed to locate the water pipes, but Randi decided that it must have been luck and falsifies the test results after the fact to avoid paying up. This would still be fraud, but not because he secretly believed in the paranormal; rather, sort of the mirror image of the spiritualists who earnestly believed in spirits, but who felt obliged to provide special effects at their seances so as not to disappoint the customers when the spirits failed to show up. Obviously, if Randi were really in it for the money, he’s chosen the wrong side; with his magician’s training and showmanship, he could easily be making millions as a faith healer, televangelist, or psychic. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-sincere-skeptic-or-money-grubbing-fraud-dowsing/169999/17 "2003-04-23T03:01:59Z")
In the original thread, Pheonix Dragon said this: > [@](#): > > You keep saying that it’s unfair, because [those dowsers that Randi tests] never claim to be able to detect water in pipes, but that is untrue. They do claim that they can detect water in pipes, right at the begining of the test. To which peter morris responded: > [@](#): > > What part of “they were talking rubbish” didn’t you understand? > > I repeat what I have said so many times before. I think that most dowsers are liars, quite possibly all of them are. But I also think Randi is a fraud too. peter morris, PD’s comments (as is quite obvious from his quoted paragraph) concern your ongoing allegation that Randi’s tests are unfair. You say that those dowsers tested by Randi are talking rubbish. Randi’s tests prove those dowsers are talking rubbish. You appear to be in agreement with Randi on this point. So why are his tests (which obtain precisely the result that _you_ would expect) unfair? That is PD’s point. How about you state, succinctly, point by point, why you consider Randi to be a fraud? I know you say you’ve already done this, but humour me. Lay it out for me bit by bit. Because as matters stand, your position just does not make sense. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-sincere-skeptic-or-money-grubbing-fraud-dowsing/169999/18 "2003-04-23T03:30:13Z")
Oh by the way, I haven’t responded to you regarding Randi’s “lie” about underground rivers. Once again, what he actually says is: > [@](#): > > Besides, the “underground river” notion that dowsers maintain is sheer fiction, not supported at all by geological research. You say that this is a statement by Randi that underground rivers are fiction. I say that what he says and means is that thenotion of underground rivers that dowsers maintain (ie that they are everywhere etc) is fiction. If Randi meant what you say he meant, for what reason did he put the word “notion” in? Try reading Randi’s quote again. It doesn’t matter how many times you read it, peter, the word “notion” is still there, isn’t it? You exhort us to read your posts carefully and respond to what you actually say. Perhaps you should apply the same exhortation to yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-sincere-skeptic-or-money-grubbing-fraud-dowsing/169999/19 "2003-04-23T04:24:34Z")
**peter** , the point of the quote is in reply to your accusation that Randi does not test dowsers against their claims, but makes up different claims to test them against. **Phoenix Dragon** is pointing out that the dowsers themselves **do** claim to be able to find water in pipes, as opposed to natural water - they claim it when applying to take the test. You also state that Randi makes them sign a form that states they agree with the test setup even if they don’t. I’m sorry, but that’s just ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![Phoenix\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Phoenix\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-sincere-skeptic-or-money-grubbing-fraud-dowsing/169999/20 "2003-04-23T04:34:18Z")
Thanks Princhester 🙂 I was going to go into a long post of my own, but it looks like you (And Irishman) already covered all the posts I was going to cover. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-sincere-skeptic-or-money-grubbing-fraud-dowsing/169999.md?page=2)