Can a man walk around a field and find where water is likely to be? Almost certainly -- I expect there are signs that he can pick up that will guide him, and with practice you would get even better. On this much there's no disagreement between anyone.
The sticks don't help in the slightest, is the thing. They just don't. They cannot. There is no connection between water in a field and sticks in your hand. Ultimately, that is the issue. At best, they are perhaps responding to your own instincts: "I think water is nearby, I will jerk the sticks to indicate it", your subconscious says.
You can call me wrong all you like, gness. On this one, the weight of evidence, logic and scientific reason are all against you.
If things change and suddenly an experiment comes along to overturn this and support your position, then firstly wow -- no-one ever got rich by betting that some paranormal effect would turn out to be genuine. But secondly I still won't change my mind, exactly. Not because I'm being dogmatic and all. But my mind is made up that I will accept the results of careful experiments over personal accounts whenever the two are in conflict. I do it everywhere else, so why not here? And, if then the experimental evidence changes the picture, then what else can I do but follow that?
Someone sent me an email with the fabulous quote, "the plural of anecdote is not data". That is the point here. Everyone in the world can come on here and say that they have seen dowsing in action, that it works. Fine -- do the same in a controlled experiment then, and if it works in those conditions I'll start to take notice.
I want to stress, that I myself haven't compared you, or anyone else who believes that dowsing works, to someone who believes in fairies. It's just that you have to accept that for me, experimental data reigns supreme. It works everywhere else, after all -- and there is no reason why it shouldn't work here. And therefore, anyone who observes results contrary to experiment ought to be treated with scepticism.