TheBear
|
Re: Lets Blow this Dowsing Lark off Fina
Apr 05, 2006, 08:01
|
> My father works for a firm that uses 'scientific' methods to extract water. Oddly, they have dowsers on the payroll when 'science' fails them.
Heh heh, can I have a job then? ;)
It amuses me to think that James Randi may indeed have the last laugh as any phenomena replicable under 'scientific' measuring methods would no longer be deemed paranormal or supernatural, and henceforth not eligible for a prize.
Ha ha! :D But is that the reason no-one steps up to have a go at claiming his prize? As I said above, (even if Randi did Welch on the bet) you'd still be up for a Nobel Prize and international fame and fortune :) Worth a go isn't it?
|
StoneLifter
|
Re: Lets Blow this Dowsing Lark off Fina
Apr 05, 2006, 08:07
|
|
No, that's not true. Acupuncture is actively researched and extended. I would imagine that herbalism is as well. This argument is, however, endless and, perhaps, pointless. Some things are almost incapable of proof. What did Milla Jovovich ever see in Luc Besson, for instance? Will we ever know ? What proof is there (other than the film) ?
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Lets Blow this Dowsing Lark off Fina
Apr 05, 2006, 08:17
|
Oh it doesn't. It just proves that not everything is 'proveable' (yet).
I do not doubt some forms of dowsing and again I'll say what I've said before: Geofizz is just electronic dowsing. It just so happens that we do understand the principles behind that because we built the tools/instruments. Because we don't built the forked hazel twig we don't know its workings and won't accept them.
The problems with tests like Randi's etc is that they don't really test the claims. If a bloke says he can dowse for an underground spring in a field in Sligo he'll be tested to see if he can find a full glass of water in an office. Whatever force (if any) is causing the reaction the dowser experiences will not be present in different conditions. Until the bloke is tested in loads of fields in Sligo and fails we can not poo-poo his claims.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Lets Blow this Dowsing Lark off Fina
Apr 05, 2006, 08:19
|
"Ancient Chinese medicine might work but it's static. Modern medicine ( and hence modern science) are under continual development.
Modern science has a future, other disciplines only have a past!"
Modern pharm companies spend shite loads of money travelling around the world researching old medicines and ripping off the countries where medicinal plants grow. The old stuff has a MASSIVE future.
|
TheBear
|
Re: Lets Blow this Dowsing Lark off Fina
Apr 05, 2006, 08:29
|
> I think 'modern science' generally breeds arrogance and ignorance.
How can it be arrogant or ignorant to try and explain the world around us in a meaningful way?
> Everything is benchmarked upon findings that are generally less than 400 years old.
Well of course it is! Modern science is less than 400 years old... tautology on!
> I'm not saying that modern science is wrong but it seems to me that anything that doesn't conform or that can't be proved by it's standards is dismissed.
Erm.. a subtle but important point - the scientific method doesn't try to prove anything, it tries to disprove things... whatever it cannot disprove by careful testing remain as the best "guesses" as to how nature behaves. However, if something cannot be carefully tested it cannot be disproved.... and certainly not proved! Happily dowsing has been tested and the results show a statistical success rate as good as random chance. I think that counts as disproved ;)
|
TheBear
|
Re: Lets Blow this Dowsing Lark off Fina
Apr 05, 2006, 08:40
|
> Oh it doesn't. It just proves that not everything is 'proveable' (yet).
Again, subtle point, but the scientific method doesn't set out to 'prove' anything. The nature of experiment is to try and repeat what someone else claims they have discovered and see if they are wrong. If their claims are found to be wrong then their theroy is wrong. By eliminating the theories that are found to be wrong what remains are our best explanations of how the world is. It's a common misconception to speak of a scientific proof...and it's true that in a shorthand way of speaking many scientists may speak like that but all they can really say is that their theroy hasn't been proven wrong yet. However, importamtly this doesn't necessarily allow a back to mean that the theory will be shown to be wrong in the future, often that it may currntly be incomplete. i.e. as seen in the preogreesion through the findings of Copernicus to Gallileo via Newton to Einstein... each subsequent step was a refinement of the previous explanation by attempting to disprove it. We cannot disprove Einstein's theory of relativity, so for now it stands as one of the best explanations of how nature is.
|
TheBear
|
Re: Lets Blow this Dowsing Lark off Fina
Apr 05, 2006, 08:45
|
> If a bloke says he can dowse for an underground spring in a field in Sligo he'll be tested to see if he can find a full glass of water in an office. Whatever force (if any) is causing the reaction the dowser experiences will not be present in different conditions.
Hey FourWinds, I posted this somewhere else but it may interest you:
http://www.csicop.org/si/9901/dowsing.html
:)
|
Rhiannon
|
Re:you want proof?
Apr 05, 2006, 10:45
|
Randi would wriggle out of it somehow even if you proved it to the satisfaction of everyone else. He's not about to lose the reputation he's worked on for the last x years.
Detecting things that are beneath the ground without digging them up? It's witchcraft I tell you. Invisible things don't exist. Burn them!
|
jacksprat
|
Re:you want proof?
Apr 05, 2006, 11:37
|
|
I agree Monsuier Crop - he would refute your claims on the basis that you can't prove you can detect something which has not been proven to exist itself ie. ley lines. If, however, you do win the cash, could you see your way to lending me a tenner - I need to get some cat food. ;0)
|
moss
|
Re:you want proof?
Apr 05, 2006, 11:45
|
|
I expect someone will take up your challenge, if you promise to be there on the day Kevin, its Jacksprat's site that you have nominated, so someone will have to do an archaeological survey of the area, also geological as well perhaps. The witnesses will have to have completely open and unbiased minds and not be prejudiced in anyway!!
|
