# Water dowsers **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 9, 2011, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-dowsers/592141 "2011-08-09T23:38:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-dowsers/592141/41 "2011-08-11T03:04:35Z")
> [@Snnipe\_70E](#): > > Can you explain why well diggers can come up with dry well if it is every where? They don’t dig deep enough. Artesian wells can go to a depth of over 2 kilometres. In most places you don’t have to go that far, but there will be water at that depth almost anywhere in the planet. When well diggers come up with a dry well, it’s because they gave up after a specific depth. The depth at which they give up mostly depends on the average depth in the region. In a region where the average well is 10 metres, very few people will dig past 20 metres. It’s just not worth it because it’s easier to try to get water closer to the surface somewhere else. In a region where the average depth is 100 metres, nobody will stop digging at 20 metres because they know they have little chance of finding water at 20 metres anywhere else. This is one of the confounding factors in dowsing. The very presence of the dowser gives people encouragement to keep digging deeper, which drastically increases the chances of finding water. Imagine two teams of well diggers working in an area where the average well depth is 10 metres. Team A has a dowser, team B does not. When Team B reaches 20 metres, they will pack up and move to another site, leaving a dry well. Team A, OTOH, will be urged on by the dowser who assures them them the water is there. Team B eventually strikes water at 40 metres. That seems like a “hit” for the dowser, but the fact is that all the dowser did was give them encouragement. If team B has kept digging, they too would have hit water at 40 metres. That factor alone would lead to well-sites selected by dowsers being more productive on average than other sites. ---
**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:** [August 11, 2011, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-dowsers/592141/42 "2011-08-11T05:52:59Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > I don’t think there was any negative association mentioned, at least I didn’t get that, and really that would be inappropriate in such a text. IIRC It just stated what it was and how it is still used in industry today (again a aside illustration with comments, no real details). First, why would it be inappropriate in such a text? Would it be appropriate for an astronomy text to have a chapter on astrology? For a nutrition text to have a chapter on reading tea leaves? For a psychology text to have a chapter on psychokinesis? If so, wouldn’t it be appropriate for those chapters to state clearly that said pseudoscience is essentially debunked? Secondly, dowsing is used _in industry_? Real industry? Are you serious? Well, I suppose if police departments can be scammed into spending our tax dollars on psychics, then a business could be scammed into hiring a dowser. Because, yes, anybody who actually charges money for dowsing is a scam artist. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-dowsers/592141/43 "2011-08-11T06:11:18Z")
As noted by many already if you dig far enough you will hit water anywhere. But one practice in the area of Mexico where I am currently, that every small child seems to know, is that where a certain tree is growing there is water immediately beneath that spot. Without having to dig very far there will be easy access to an underground river at that spot because its why the tree was able to grow there. The roots cant make it through hard stone or grow too deep, they need a straight shot down into some nearby water. This system, used in determining where to dig a well, and where NOT to build a heavy structure due to unstable ground, seems to work every time I’ve seen it demonstrated. So a “successful” dowser, if there is such a thing, could just be a charlatan who happens to know some signs to look for above the ground that indicate easy access to water immediately below. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-dowsers/592141/44 "2011-08-11T06:22:32Z")
> [@Son\_of\_a\_Rich](#): > > A well can be too deep? Dig too deep, you might strike a Balrog. That never turns out well. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-dowsers/592141/45 "2011-08-11T12:08:51Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > I would be amazed if some mention of dowsing is not in every serious educational series of books on geophysics. You made this claim that this is so common in geophysics textbooks-I ask that you either provide an example of this, or quit stating this as a fact. Cite? ---
**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:** [August 11, 2011, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-dowsers/592141/46 "2011-08-11T12:11:19Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > So a “successful” dowser, if there is such a thing, could just be a charlatan who happens to know some signs to look for above the ground that indicate easy access to water immediately below. Yes, but “charlatan” might be overly harsh. It could be someone who is merely self-deluded. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-dowsers/592141/47 "2011-08-11T12:28:45Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Yes, but “charlatan” might be overly harsh. It could be someone who is merely self-deluded. My theory is those who might actually find nearby water with any regularity more so than random chance - who may or may not exist, probably just happen to know something about the land, the direction the underground waters run, what plant life exists only near water in the area, etc., and the ‘dowsing stick’ is just a prop. Like a magicians wand. That’s not self-delusion, it’s smoke and mirrors. But there are surely some that do it out of pure delusion, too. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-dowsers/592141/48 "2011-08-11T13:20:24Z")
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:23, topic:592141”] Unfortunately, I have seen no attempt to answer that question… [/QUOTE] Post #4 is chopped liver? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-dowsers/592141/49 "2011-08-11T13:27:11Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > No, it doesn’t seem appropriate. It would be like learning about witch doctors in medical school. It’s not useful, and it’s not going to be taught in any reputable school. [quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:42, topic:592141”] First, why would it be inappropriate in such a text? Would it be appropriate for an astronomy text to have a chapter on astrology? For a nutrition text to have a chapter on reading tea leaves? For a psychology text to have a chapter on psychokinesis? If so, wouldn’t it be appropriate for those chapters to state clearly that said pseudoscience is essentially debunked? [/QUOTE] My school chemistry textbook had a section on Phlogiston, including an explanation of how the theory came to be discarded when Oxygen was properly discovered and described. Phlogiston theory got many of the observations right, but proposed a mechanism that explained them in reverse - understanding how we got from there to here is understanding the scientific method, so entirely appropriate for a textbook. ---
**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:** [August 11, 2011, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-dowsers/592141/50 "2011-08-11T13:48:52Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Post #4 is chopped liver? Point taken. And chopped liver can be kind of tasty… ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-dowsers/592141/51 "2011-08-11T14:01:04Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Perhaps you were not looking for it, or perhaps the geophysics text book I got in college was unusual in that respect (IIRC titled ‘Modern Geophysics’ in about 1996). The book seemed to have gotten lost in some move over they years Can’t you dowse for it? That’s how I find lost library books when the due date comes around. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-dowsers/592141/52 "2011-08-11T14:12:11Z")
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:50, topic:592141”] Point taken. And chopped liver can be kind of tasty… [/QUOTE] But it is inferior to fried livers with white gravy on the side. Speaking of which, I’ve been unable to find any such restaurant here… would dowsers suggest that I use a forked stick or something closer to a rod to find me some southern style livers? Thanks in advance. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-dowsers/592141/53 "2011-08-11T14:12:13Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > The book seemed to have gotten lost in some move over they years, it did have a illustration with comments of a utility worker using dowsing, a brief talk about it in the intro section as dowsing is part of the predecessor and history of geophysics, man wanting to know what is under the ground, Well, it is a part of the HISTORY of geophysics, but it hasn’t seriously been used in decades in anything resembling actual geophysical work. Modern techniques were already in play in the 20s and 30s, though they weren’t developed enough to fully trust. If you go back far enough, wildcatter oil men tried all sorts of crazy thing to figure out what was under the ground. Many charlatans peddled secret and mystic ways to find where the oil was. Sometimes they got lucky. Didn’t mean they were onto something. So, modern geophysics does, in some sense, owe its legacy to dowsing. But modern chemistry also owes its legacy to alchemy and astronomy to astrology. I would believe you if you told me alchemy and astrology were mentioned in the intro sections to chemistry and astronomy books. In fact, I’d even believe you if you told me they were mentioned without negative associations. Why? Because the non-scientific parts are so ridiculous and non-controversially false that any sane and rational person would never waste time putting them down. Ditto dowsing. It’s not important enough or controversial enough to waste time with. > [@kanicbird](#): > > I would be amazed if some mention of dowsing is not in every serious educational series of books on geophysics. Then be amazed. It’s not worth more than an aside in the introductory chapter, if that. I, on the other hand, would be shocked and awed if a chemistry textbook seriously tried to explain how to convert lead to gold via alchemical means. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-dowsers/592141.md?page=2)