# Water Witching **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [September 11, 2009, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-witching/509722 "2009-09-11T19:42:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-witching/509722/261 "2009-10-11T12:29:19Z")
Moderator intruding for just some friendly suggestions: First, people are bordering on comments about the other person, rather than what the other person says. So far as I can see, everything looks fine, and so thanks to you all for not crossing that delicate line into personal insults. Offering up information about your own background to bolster your statements is fine; making guesses about another person’s background is not. Second, there’s a lot of far-afield conversations going on here. The question of doctors and drugs is an interesting one in its own right, and I suggest that it be put in a different thread in a different forum. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-witching/509722/262 "2009-10-11T15:17:11Z")
> [@jeanjaz](#): > > So, let’s say that some people have it in their genetic makeup to be born with these sorts of cells that are able to sense magnetic fields or static electricity fields (is that what gauss meters sense?). Who knows maybe we all have these cells, but like what biofeedback machines do for us, we don’t know how to tap into the information these cells give us. I don’t know if you are familiar with biofeedback machines, but it is a way to give an audible or visible cue whenever a person does a certain thing with their body they wouldn’t normally be able to sense and control. > So lets say, that given certain situations, a person has found a way to tap into this information… You can hypothesize all day about possible explanations for why dowsing works, but before anyone cares, you first have to show _that it works_. With dowsing, no one has done this yet. From everything we currently know about physics, it shouldn’t work, we have known explanations for why people may mistakenly think it works, and we have no evidence that it _does_ work. Your hypotheses don’t matter - the first step is to show that it works. > [@jeanjaz](#): > > Okay, now THIS one I can at least partially defend. I have read at least TWO studies that refer to parts of the brain that aren’t used. I probably got the actual percentage from hearsay, but the existence of areas of the brain that we don’t use is an actuality. I suppose I thought that since the one was true then the other was also. I know the one study, if you can find it, was on the use of glossalalia (sp?). it was done at ORU by brain specialists there. ORU is _Oral Roberts University_?!? That’s funny. ---
**Author:** ![JimOfAllTrades](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@JimOfAllTrades](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JimOfAllTrades)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-witching/509722/263 "2009-10-11T18:26:58Z")
> [@jeanjaz](#): > > One possibility that I picture COULD be the scenario (I am NOT saying it is, btw) > > (snip of theory that people can sense magnetic fields like migrating brids) > > This is what I was trying to say in an earlier post. Since it goes against KNOWN physics, then it either is a bunch of hokiness, or it is based on UNKNOWN physics or an unusual combo of KNOWN physics. IF it is true (not necessarily my make-believe scenario above), and it is based on UNKNOWN physics, then how do we know what conditions would affect the tests? How do we know what would make it fail or not? How do we know what the variables are? > > So, what I have been saying ever since I entered into this discussion, is there hasn’t been enough proof to say this ability is real, but there also hasn’t been enough proof to say it isn’t real - to my satisfaction anyway. And what we’ve been saying that whole time is that speculating on _how_ it works is useless until it can be shown to _actually_ work at some level. Let’s say we think your idea with people who can sense magnetic fields like migrating birds is true, or there some other poorly understood mechanism in play. Why do the dowsers always get everything correct during the test when they can see the where the water is (or the gold, or the playing card, or whatever the target is), but then as soon as they can no longer see the answer in advance they fail at the exact same test they passed an hour ago? This has happened time after time. What is your explanation? > [@jeanjaz](#): > > I’ve heard a lot of you all’s explanations and they are very reasonable and in the situations described I’ve no doubt those dynamics were at work. They don’t explain the situations I’ve seen though. I’m not saying those were legitimate - I don’t know if they were or not - but I’m saying those explanations don’t work in these situations. I don’t know how I would discount them except by pure luck. And of course, you could never be fooled, have not seen everything, have misinterpreted something, forgotten any relevant details, got some information third hand, or not understood everything you saw. None of those things is possible at all? > [@jeanjaz](#): > > Another very unfortunate thing is that concise, analytical types like most of you, have very little patience or room in your world for pictorial types like me. This has been a real handicap in my career with my business degree, let me tell you. I have managed by knowing my business very well and learning the analytical language and the catch phrases typically used in the businesses where I’ve been employed. I am fairly well-read, but I remember what I’ve read in pictures, making it very difficult to communicate because the terminology just doesn’t stick easily to pictures. Oh please, you’re not a martyr to your cause here. We are not discounting you because poor old you talks too much, or “paints wordpictures”, or doesn’t speak our language. On the contrary, the stories you tell are being discounted because they are _exactly_ like the stories we’ve heard a thousand times. They are not strange, unfamiliar, and challenging, they are the same old stuff, all too common. Without proof, they are just old family stories. **pramanujan** is willing to step up and try to provide proof. What are you willing to do? ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-witching/509722/264 "2009-10-11T18:31:51Z")
> [@RJKUgly](#): > > Oh please, you’re not a martyr to your cause here. We are not discounting you because poor old you talks too much, or “paints wordpictures”, or doesn’t speak our language. **RKUgly** – and this comes two posts after I reminded everyone to stay civil, and congratulated folks on how nicely behaved everyone was? Shame. Personal insults are not permitted in this forum. Please don’t do this again. ---
**Author:** ![JimOfAllTrades](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@JimOfAllTrades](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JimOfAllTrades)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-witching/509722/265 "2009-10-11T19:42:08Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > **RKUgly** – and this comes two posts after I reminded everyone to stay civil, and congratulated folks on how nicely behaved everyone was? Shame. Personal insults are not permitted in this forum. Please don’t do this again. Sorry Dex, you’re right. I apologize to **jeanjaz** for crossing that line. ---
**Author:** ![jeanjaz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c5a1d2/32.png) [@jeanjaz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jeanjaz)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-witching/509722/266 "2009-10-12T06:15:29Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > You can hypothesize all day about possible explanations for why dowsing works, but before anyone cares, you first have to show _that it works_. With dowsing, no one has done this yet. From everything we currently know about physics, it shouldn’t work, we have known explanations for why people may mistakenly think it works, and we have no evidence that it _does_ work. Your hypotheses don’t matter - the first step is to show that it works. If you don’t care then why do you even have this thread or even this article? “Everything we currently know about physics…” There’s the sticking point - how difficult is it to say that the people on this forum may not know everything there is to know about physics and so are not qualified to say that anyone who thinks it could, just possibly, be legitimate is ignorant? And I am not talking about ripoff artists using such claims to fleece people. Besides all that, you missed the point of my even making an hypothesis. > [@CurtC](#): > > ORU is _Oral Roberts University_?!? That’s funny. Are you discounting those PhD’s because they happen to practice at a certain institution? Would you feel the same way if it was BJU or maybe Texas A&M? As long as the studies were done along strict scientific methods, what does it matter what building they are doing it in? ---
**Author:** ![jeanjaz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c5a1d2/32.png) [@jeanjaz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jeanjaz)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-witching/509722/267 "2009-10-12T06:20:00Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > Moderator intruding for just some friendly suggestions: > First, people are bordering on comments about the other person, rather than what the other person says. So far as I can see, everything looks fine, and so thanks to you all for not crossing that delicate line into personal insults. Offering up information about your own background to bolster your statements is fine; making guesses about another person’s background is not. > > Second, there’s a lot of far-afield conversations going on here. The question of doctors and drugs is an interesting one in its own right, and I suggest that it be put in a different thread in a different forum. Sorry, it was originally part of an example I used to illustrate a point, but it took on a life of it’s own. ---
**Author:** ![jeanjaz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c5a1d2/32.png) [@jeanjaz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jeanjaz)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-witching/509722/268 "2009-10-12T07:24:40Z")
> [@RJKUgly](#): > > but then as soon as they can no longer see the answer in advance they fail at the exact same test they passed an hour ago? > > This has happened time after time. > > What is your explanation? > > And of course, you could never be fooled, have not seen everything, have misinterpreted something, forgotten any relevant details, got some information third hand, or not understood everything you saw. None of those things is possible at all? And none of the things you’ve referred to have been second or third hand? I have seen very, very few links to official documents or reports in this thread, so I would ask you the same questions. That was the point of the ‘background’ that you all had problems with, I was explaining the environment and circumstances where I have encountered dowsing. It wasn’t someone going around selling tickets or making claims to make themselves unusual or famous. They weren’t even trying to prove anything. I didn’t make any claims, I am not saying it is legitimate, but I’m not putting down the people who believe in it either - I don’t know enough on either side to make that judgment. > [@RJKUgly](#): > > Oh please, you’re not a martyr to your cause here. We are not discounting you because poor old you talks too much, or “paints wordpictures”, or doesn’t speak our language. On the contrary, the stories you tell are being discounted because they are _exactly_ like the stories we’ve heard a thousand times. They are not strange, unfamiliar, and challenging, they are the same old stuff, all too common. > > Without proof, they are just old family stories. **pramanujan** is willing to step up and try to provide proof. What are you willing to do? I accept your apology, RJKUgly, but to respond to your point, I wasn’t saying all that to gain sympathy or to make it so you guys don’t stomp all over me whenever I post something. I was trying to explain that my ‘stories’ or illustrations are only to explain a point, they ARE NOT THE POINT. Obviously, you, and probably everyone else still don’t get it. I’d like to say I would have the intestinal fortitude to step up as Pramanujan did, but, you know, based on my experience here thus far, if I did have some ability to dowse, I don’t know if I would bother to try to prove it to you all. Some people have already made a decision, have decided that anything that opposes their known world is hokiness, so it would be a lesson in frustration to attempt to do a test strenuous enough that it would be convincing. Fortunately, I don’t have the ability, so I don’t have to make that decision. ---
**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:** [October 12, 2009, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-witching/509722/269 "2009-10-12T13:26:22Z")
Reality is not a worldview, and viewing both sides as equal when one side has all the evidence and the other side has nothing but stories and self-rightious indignation is not being open-minded. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-witching/509722/270 "2009-10-12T13:57:59Z")
> [@jeanjaz](#): > > If you don’t care then why do you even have this thread or even this article? Or even this whole message forum? We’re a group of people who, for the most part, appreciate critical thinking and would like to believe in stuff that’s true and not believe stuff that’s not true. It’s our hobby. > [@](#): > > “Everything we currently know about physics…” There’s the sticking point - how difficult is it to say that the people on this forum may not know everything there is to know about physics and so are not qualified to say that anyone who thinks it could, just possibly, be legitimate is ignorant? No one here has said, or would say, that we know everything there is to know about physics, or even that dowsing is absolutely 100% impossible according to some new physics that may be yet discovered. What we are saying is that from what we _do_ know, and that’s quite a bit, that dowsing should not work. Now if there were any indication that it _does_ work, we’d take a look, see whether that info is reliable, and if it turns out that it really does work, we then go searching for reasons. But the trouble is, we have no data to think that it works. If there were some indication that it’s real, everyone here would want to be the first to know. You’re getting a reaction here because we regulars have seen these claims again and again, but there has never been one that panned out. You’re the new guy walking into a room where everyone has already been through something over and over, and are expecting that everyone will take what you say at face value. There’s a difference between someone being closed-minded and not willing to look at data (which is how you seem to see us), and someone who has already thoroughly looked with an open mind, found nothing, and reached a tentative conclusion. We’re the latter. If someone can demonstrate dowsing, then let’s see it. From the data we’ve seen, and that’s a lot, it’s much more likely that to us that you are mistaken like all the other dowsers. But if you can show it works, let’s see it. > [@](#): > > Besides all that, you missed the point of my even making an hypothesis. > [@jeanjaz](#): > > I was trying to explain that my ‘stories’ or illustrations are only to explain a point, they ARE NOT THE POINT. Obviously, you, and probably everyone else still don’t get it. So what does that tell you? > [@](#): > > I’d like to say I would have the intestinal fortitude to step up as Pramanujan did, but, you know, based on my experience here thus far, if I did have some ability to dowse, I don’t know if I would bother to try to prove it to you all. Some people have already made a decision, have decided that anything that opposes their known world is hokiness… Again, we’re open to new ideas, but we’ve been around this topic countless times already. No one has been able to demonstrate dowsing. Ever. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-witching/509722/271 "2009-10-12T19:33:35Z")
> [@jeanjaz](#): > > That was the point of the ‘background’ that you all had problems with, I was explaining the environment and circumstances where I have encountered dowsing. It wasn’t someone going around selling tickets or making claims to make themselves unusual or famous. They weren’t even trying to prove anything. I didn’t make any claims, I am not saying it is legitimate, but I’m not putting down the people who believe in it either - I don’t know enough on either side to make that judgment. As has been said already, nobody has ever passed any test for dowsing. Therefore Science classifies dowsing as paranormal. There is a reward of $1,000,000 for the first dowser to show their ability. In light of these facts, there aren’t ‘two equal sides’ to belief in dowsing. There are just scientists who would love to learn about a previously completely unknown ability and dowsers who refuse to show anyone what they can do. > [@jeanjaz](#): > > I don’t know if I would bother to try to prove it to you all. Some people have already made a decision, have decided that anything that opposes their known world is hokiness, so it would be a lesson in frustration to attempt to do a test strenuous enough that it would be convincing. Fortunately, I don’t have the ability, so I don’t have to make that decision. Nobody here has made any such ‘decision’. We’re so keen to discover if dowsing exists that we will run a photo test as soon as someone offers to show their ability. We’d all love to see a dowser in action. We’d cheer as they claimed the million dollars from the Randi Foundation. As for the ‘strenuousness’ of the test, I refer you to post 48 in this thread. Here (repeated for your convenience) is a dowsing test organised by the Randi Foundation. It took only a few minutes and everything was agreed with the dowser beforehand: > **[The Definition of "Double Blind"](http://archive.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/234-the-definition-of-qdouble-blindq.html)** > > James Randi Educational Foundation Do you know anyone who can dowse? Scientists would love to hear from them. ---
**Author:** ![Uncertain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Uncertain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncertain)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-witching/509722/272 "2009-10-13T00:22:32Z")
> [@glee](#): > > As has been said already, nobody has ever passed any test for dowsing. > Therefore Science classifies dowsing as paranormal. There should be little doubt that dowsing qualifies as paranormal. That said, one must admit that _paranormal_ is somewhat difficult to define. Perhaps, like pornography, it’s one of those “I know it when I see it” things. That nobody has ever passed any test for something is not sufficient to make it paranormal. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-witching/509722/273 "2009-10-13T03:32:48Z")
> [@Uncertain](#): > > There should be little doubt that dowsing qualifies as paranormal. > > That said, one must admit that _paranormal_ is somewhat difficult to define. Perhaps, like pornography, it’s one of those “I know it when I see it” things. That nobody has ever passed any test for something is not sufficient to make it paranormal. I’ll happily expand ‘nobody has ever passed any test for dowsing’ to ‘despite typically claiming accuracy of 90+%, dowsers invariably score around chance levels when tested’ and repeat my example of a dowser who scored 100% when he knew where the target was but only 10% when he didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-witching/509722/274 "2009-10-13T11:01:23Z")
And I’ll add a definition for paranormal: - any claim of powers (usually anecdotal) that is not supported by scientific testing (i.e. double blind) ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-witching/509722/275 "2009-10-13T21:00:27Z")
C. S. Lewis remarks that “supernatural” is very nearly meaningless, serving mostly to catch a certain emotional aura. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-witching/509722/276 "2009-10-13T21:01:42Z")
**jeanjaz** said: > [@](#): > > Okay, I looked them up and they are called mycoplasmas. Thanks for the information. They do not appear to be viral, but are bacterial, so antibiotics could be affective against them. Let’s move on from the distraction. > [@](#): > > So lets say, that given certain situations, a person has found a way to tap into this information, and like Dumbo the elephant, they need a talisman or an instrument to help them since the sensing of it is so obscure, difficult to find and control. This person doesn’t really understand why s/he can do this or why s/he needs the talisman in order to do it, they just know that they can. Suppose, like a golfer or bridge player, they need quiet and positive energy to concentrate in order to tap into this information. Almost anyone will have trouble focusing when put on the spot. That’s the problem. If being put on the spot is all it takes to disrupt their ability, then why does it work when they are put on the spot to find a well? What is it about the test conditions that is different than any other time it works? Furthermore, you might not be aware of the way these tests are conducted. Part of the protocol is to do preliminary practice runs at the test site under test conditions with one exception - the location of the item for which they are searching is known to them. They report 100% success, no issues and nothing interfering. Then the test is repeated with 1 change - the location is not known to the testee (or anyone present, so there can be no subconscious noverbal clues given). Testee fails. The simple and most consistent explanation for that is that the one condition change is significant, and the significance is the reason it is controlled. That the reason dowsing appears to work is because of subconscious clues and wishful thinking, combined with poorly controlled conditions for normal use. When no one knows the location, there are no clues for the dowser to read, so the talent doesn’t work. By the way, nobody says during the testing “this isn’t working”. They are all completely confident during their test, just as they were in the pre-test run. It is only during results examination, when they are shown wrong, that suddenly they report there was interference or they were not sure or whatever excuse they can cobble up. Nobody voices that concern during the test. > [@](#): > > So, what I have been saying ever since I entered into this discussion, is there hasn’t been enough proof to say this ability is real, but there also hasn’t been enough proof to say it isn’t real - to my satisfaction anyway. I have no obligation to believe it is real without proof. I am not under the same obligation to justify my non-belief. I welcome evidence to show me wrong, but I’m not going to stand completely undecided. I’ll hold a tentative conclusion, given the sum of all the results. Testing shows it doesn’t work when controlled. Physics says there’s an explanation for why it appears to work. No unexplained holes remain that require something new. > [@](#): > > But from what I have seen of the use of dowsing rods, I don’t see how Pramanujan’s use could be a physical thing. Well, that’s not your call to make, is it? I mean, I can’t see how it could be a physical thing, either, but **paramanujan** is the one who says this effect happens. He is the one who asserts there is something about the pictures moving the rods. It’s his claim, we have to take his word on the how, let’s worry about the “does it really do that?” > [@](#): > > Picture this a moment, not everyone likes that kind of notoriety. … > But if someone received a million bucks because they did something so unusual – proving a very controversial skill – can you imagine the notoriety that would kick up from however many quarters? I would imagine it would take years to die down, if that. I’m not required to believe them if they are unwilling to demonstrate it. If they don’t want the notoriety, then they’ll just have to live with the fact that people think they are delusional or frauds. But really, I can’t imagine turning down $1Million dollars just because there would be some notoriety over it. I mean, if it is literally something I do everyday, I’d want the world to know it. I’d want someone to study how it works. And I’d love to have enough money to be able to invest[sup]1[/sup] it and live comfortably for the rest of my life. But maybe that’s just me. > [@](#): > > Besides, my cynical thought would be that the guy would never be satisfied with a person’s ‘proof’ no matter what test you passed. That’s a concern. That’s why the tests are designed the way they are. All test conditions have to be mutually acceptable, the pass/fail criteria is clearly established ahead of time, and the prelim the day of the test verifies that the testing conditions are fair and the testee can perform. There is no point in conducting a test if the testee doesn’t think the conditions are right. He needs to be sure everything is in order. Furthermore, the tests are designed so there is a clear, obvious result - no personal judgment. This isn’t gymnastics at the Olympics, there’s no score for artistic merit. > [@](#): > > So, I get it. Your definition of paranormal is anything undiscovered, out of the ordinary, or just something you don’t understand yet. I don’t know how “scientific” that definition is, but I can live with it. Seems a little wacky to me. I had the general impression that paranormal is related to psychic, or any of the tele-whosits - telekenesis, telepathy, etc.. “Paranormal” is a word that means “beyond normal”. Typically it has been applied to things like psychic powers, but also to things like bigfoot and UFOs. To me, an item isn’t paranormal just because physics can’t explain it. I don’t think of quantum behavior as paranormal, even though some of the effects are rather bizarre and do not conform to macroscopic world expectations. (Think wave/particle duality for one example.) For me, something becomes paranormal when it not only is unexplainable by the known, but it runs in conflict with known physics. For example, telekenesis is the ability to move items with mind power. There is nothing in known physics that allows this to happen, and intensive study has not shown this to be possible. It is pretty beyond the normal. My telephone example works the same. 300 years ago, there would be no way to conceive of talking on one room and your voice being clearly heard some distance away. Sound doesn’t work that way, and common experience defied it. But a little electromagnetism, some piezoelectrics, and a bit of audiology, and suddenly the impossible becomes the commonplace. Theoretically, dowsing could be the same way. There could be some hidden “energy” source that somehow the dowser taps, and the rods are just a tool to translate their unconscious reading to a visually observable form. Practically, though, one needs to demonstrate that there is something that is being conveyed beyond what can be conveyed through known means before a potential unknown means is worth investigating. > [@](#): > > The people my kin said had this ability wouldn’t care if any ‘scientific types’ believed it was legit or not. Their attitude would be it got the job done and lets get on with it and they wouldn’t waste their time trying to prove it to anyone. To my mind, they’re wasting their time and effort on something that only appears to be working, and that more effective means might be available that they are overlooking or avoiding because their erroneous expectations get in the way. But hey, they can do that. > [@](#): > > Something else that bothers me about this statement, is the general pessimism. My idea of a true scientific mindset is one that is open to all possibilities and only crosses off a possibility when it has proven itself wrong. If you start with a closed mindset, forcing the possibilities to pry their way in in order to get attention, you are never going to see all there is to see because not all possibilities have the will or the power with which to force their way. But we’re not operating in a vacuum here. It’s not like this is the first time this has been brought up, so we have no basis of comparison. This is just one more in a long line of similar claims without supporting evidence. Everything presented looks just like all the other dowsing claims that have gone around, and nothing measures up to scrutiny. Nothing presented is novel and not accounted for by common mistakes - everything from outright fraud to assuming your results are valid and not actually testing them, to mistaken understandings of what results are expectable. It’s like one more in a long line of “Free, make money from home\*” – (\*just send $19.95 to…) > [@](#): > > I know the one study, if you can find it, was on the use of glossalalia (sp?). ## I’ll look in to it. But I don’t think that discounts my comment. There may be one or two structures that aren’t fully understood, but that’s a far cry from "we don’t use 90% of our brains). [sup]1[/sup]How I could safely invest it is a separate can of worms. 😉 ---
**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:** [December 2, 2009, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-witching/509722/277 "2009-12-02T22:54:56Z")
I have watched this thread, and the [Dowsing On Photos test](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=534851)thread with interest. We have seen \*\*pramanujan \*\* take a test. Despite failing the test, he still believes that he is able to dowse. Some people have criticized his failure to change his mind in the face of evidence against his claims. I wonder, however, if some of his more outspoken detractors are any better at critical thinking than he is. Are they, in fact, any more able to chang their minds when given evidence that contradicts their beliefs. Let us consider a claim made by glee, which he has made over and over again in recent threads, repeatedly cutting & pasting the same words. > [@glee](#): > > 1I may have put my point too firmly on this issue. This is because I have been hearing unsupported claims of dowsing for decades. > When challenged for scientific proof, the dowser immediately declines. > When offered $1,000,000 for a morning’s work, the dowser uses one of the following: > > - it’s too complicated to apply > - I haven’t got the time > - I don’t believe he has the money > - I know he has the money, but he won’t hand it over > - I don’t need the money > - my powers don’t work if I get paid > - my powers don’t work if anyone is watching > - my powers don’t work when they are tested > > I note that your mother is not even going to try a dowsing test because ‘being rich is highly overrated’. :rolleyes: > > As for my background, I’m an international chess player, computer programmer and teacher. > I believe in the scientific method. \*\*glee \*\*is making two claims here, a general one, and a specific one. In general he is claiming that Randi is willing to test dowsers’ claims, but that dowsers are unwilling to be tested. I submit that **glee** ’s claim is wrong. It is just as mistaken as **pramanujan** ’s belief in dowsing, as recent events have shown. We have seen events unfold, and **glee** ’s statement completely failed to come true. Contrary to his expectations, \*\*pramanujan \*\*was in fact willing to be tested. He agreed to a test by Dopers. He also agreed to be tested by Randi. Randi, however, did not reply. Having seen this happen, **glee** , are you prepared to rethink your claims? Are you prepared to admit that it does not always happen the way you said? Next time you cite Randi’s test, will you acknowledge the possibility that Randi might not even respond to an applicant? Or will you cut & paste this exact same claim, unmodified? The second and more specific claim made by \*\*glee \*\*is that dowsers offer specific excuses for their failure to apply. I’d like to know the basis for such a claim. glee, have you or anyone else ever actually seen a dowser offer one of these excuses? Can you provide specific examples? Can you name a dowser who has ever claimed that the money doesn’t exist? Can you name a dowser who has said that his powers don’t work if he gets paid? Or a dowser who has said that he doesn’t have time to apply? Or one who says he doesn’t need the money? I have never seen any dowser say anything of the sort. I do not believe that they do so, certainly not on a regular basis. With one exception from your list. There are a lot of dowsers who don’t believe that Randi will pay if he loses. I’ll grant that this one is often given as a reason for not applying. Can you provide cites for any of the others? Note - I will not accept **jeanjaz** ’s mother as a cite. because: 1. the remark that “money isn’t everything” was NOT offered as a reason for not applying 2. she doesn’t even claim paranormal powers in the first place. She has repeatedly stated that has never tried it, does not claim that it works, does not know if it works, does not claim to be able to do it. 3. The remark came from the daughter, and not the woman herself. How about it, glee? Can you back up your claim with evidence? If not, are you willing to withdraw or change it accordingly? ---
**Author:** ![Santa\_Cruz\_n](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/74df32/32.png) [@Santa\_Cruz\_n](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Santa_Cruz_n)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-witching/509722/278 "2009-12-03T20:40:11Z")
To Peter Morris: In your effort to show flaws in critical thinking, aren’t you really missing the point? Let’s get back to the reason for the thread-- Can anyone actually witch a well using paranormal abilities? The claims have been made and tested probably hundreds of times. How many times must it be retested before it can be said that it is highly unlikely that anyone has such an ability? It seems to me that eventually you reach a point were you must accept that this paranormal ability is likely a fallacy. Please notice I didn’t say “I believe” this ability is a fallacy. Scientists don’t "believe’ anything. They accept the empirical data for what it is and one can then operate on this statement. The statement is now subject to further investigation within reason. but is a scientist supposed to continue studying a phenomenon that has been shown repeatedly to not exist? What’s that popular definition of insanity: Repeating the same action over and over and expecting different results? Eventually the scientist must move on to more promising investigations or spend a career on what is likely a waste of time. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-witching/509722/279 "2009-12-03T21:52:30Z")
**Peter Morris** said: > [@](#): > > Contrary to his expectations, **pramanujan** was in fact willing to be tested. He agreed to a test by Dopers. He also agreed to be tested by Randi. Randi, however, did not reply. Did he actually fill out and submit the claim paperwork as spelled out by the JREF site? Or did he just say he would look into it? I don’t recall him specifically stating he applied. ---
**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:** [December 3, 2009, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-witching/509722/280 "2009-12-03T22:59:38Z")
He agreed to take the test, one of the Randi supporters contacted the JREF, then later reported that the JREF had not responded. **razncain** : “I’ve wrote to Jeff at the Randi foundation to see if they can assist us with somebody in your area.” [link](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11652573&postcount=65) \*\*pramanujan \*\*: "If we get someone in my area, I am willing to try it out. " [link](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11657128&postcount=71) **razncain** : “still no word, so I doubt they are interested” [link](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11677364&postcount=88) More than a month later, STILL no reply from JREF. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-witching/509722.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-witching/509722.md?page=15)