Moth
|
Re: A dowser`s perspective
Sep 11, 2003, 20:30
|
Hi Baz
Yeah it's a great website whatever I think of dowsing!
love
Moth
|
Hob
|
Re: Language and the eye:
Sep 11, 2003, 21:31
|
Well said.
The sentence "The scrutiny of the scientific I can only be subjective" makes sense in that context.
It makes my brain hurt a bit though.
|
Hob
|
Re: All power to his elbow.
Sep 11, 2003, 21:37
|
|
He's certainly put some thought and effort into it. If he doesn't know what it all means, he doesn't look like he's giving up. All power to his elbow.
|
Wotan
|
Re: intriuging indeed
Sep 12, 2003, 01:15
|
|
thats some good info, and he's not trying to ram it down your throat as absolute truth! Its this kind of research got me hooked.
|
Wotan
|
Re: c here
Sep 12, 2003, 01:21
|
|
i'm not a fan of organised religion myself, and especially not of C-stianity, largely due to the damage wrought on prehistoric artefacts / culture / etc in the name of religion. A belief is a personal thing that one arrives at by ones own means, not something that must be forced onto you. Ley lines etc I can accept, but again, I'd have to see it to believe it!!
|
Wotan
|
Re: and....?
Sep 12, 2003, 08:14
|
|
So has no-one taken up my challenge and ripped up the bog roll and raided the wardrobe yet ?
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: A dowser`s perspective
Sep 12, 2003, 09:20
|
Fascinating. It would be interesting to see if another dowser would identify the same lines (without having any prior knowledge of this web site).
Actually, I wonder if that would be a sufficient criterion to win Randi's prize: Two dowsers independently dowse the same area chosen at random by Randi's team. The degree of correlation between their results could be assessed mathematically without the need for the method to be scientifically understood. If the correlation was statistically significant beyond pure chance then Randi would have to accept either that dowsing works or that telepathy works. Either is sufficient to claim the prize.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: A dowser`s perspective
Sep 12, 2003, 09:30
|
I think there's something fishy about "no-one has ever passed even the preliminary tests". Is it a case of "the better you seem the higher you must jump"?
I mean, people of all sorts have been subjected to rigorous lab testing at highly respectable universities and have been "impressive" at least.
And what about dowsing? We know it IS demonstrable. So are they saying that's definitely explicable scientifically, so can't be allowed?
|
Wotan
|
Re: Have a Go Henry
Sep 12, 2003, 09:34
|
|
i'd love to have a go, given my limited experience/perception, just to see if i could pick up any correllation with a 'professional' dowsers results. Sod Randi and his moolah - i'd be happy just to be able to satisfy my own curiosity!
|
FourWinds
|
100 wasted posts?
Sep 12, 2003, 09:49
|
How can a thread on this reach 100 posts? Do people just keep posting things with no relevence?
Shame on them!
|
