|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Conclusions...Stone circles, are we learning much? |
This topic is locked
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
tiompan 5758 posts |
Nov 09, 2013, 22:42
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: Any thoughts on why some circles are made up of a random bunch of standing stones of all shapes and sizes, yet others are well matched with regard to both circumference and height? Then you get the not so perfectly round circle compared to the perfect one. Does this mean that the precision of the circumference is of little importance? Is the diameter of the circle indicative of its 'use', or because many people use it at one time? Down here on Bodmin Moor the large circles are seen as being 'ceremonial', but is there any reason why the smaller ones couldn't have been used for the same purpose whether ceremonial or not? Why do some have centre stones, others have off-centre stones and 'most' none at all? Questions, questions.... Part of the problem , touched on by E.D. earlier , is the conflation of many different types of roughly circular stone monuments built from at least the Middle Neolithic to the Late Bronze Age and all termed stone circle .
|
|||
|
Makkr 308 posts |
Nov 09, 2013, 23:08
|
||
But, weren't some sites apparently used unaltered over a couple of thousand years? What would that suggest? Laziness?
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Edited Nov 10, 2013, 06:32
Nov 10, 2013, 01:33
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: Fella's, can't you agree that it seems to work for some people What, on the basis you won't or can't provide evidence? No thanks. There's no problem with agreeing it certainly seems to work for some people in their own perception but that's a million miles from saying it works for some people - and that's the precise fault line that has been on display so clearly on this thread and which appears to have eluded you throughout. It's a fact that if I claim I dowse the lottery numbers every week the first thing you're going to say is "what are next week's numbers then?" Yet if a dowser is asked to prove he can dowse that's different and must be refused - and the questioner is at fault! That's this thread in a nutshell so please don't ask people to "agree that it seems to work" as that's doing no more than saying "please believe because I do". If you have real evidence for goodness sake let's have it. (Incidentally, evidence that is gathered "in private" isn't evidence at all, it's hearsay. Equally, saying there is lots of evidence but it can't be measured is silly because that means the person gathering it can't be aware of it themselves. So maybe people just get a "feeling" that doesn't generate results: "I know there are buried stones here but I can't dig them up" or "I know ancient people processed along here but I can't show you as they're long gone" - fine, but that's not dowsing, it's believing one can perceive something without ever being able to confirm it. There's a lot of that about and it's a bit self-indulgent and certainly pointless IMO.)
|
|||
Astralcat 742 posts |
Nov 10, 2013, 08:05
|
||
|
Mustard wrote: Astralcat wrote: Mustard wrote: Astralcat wrote: Mustard wrote: Astralcat wrote: It's like the underlying fundamentalism and aggression of the Dawkins mob, it's not that you may have a different viewpoint/perspective, like Rupert Sheldrake for instance, you're 'an ENEMY of reason', and ENEMY. How odd. It happens all the time. I have a keen interest and alternative/complimentary medicine, but the raised hackles and immediate assumption that I'm nut job who hates mainstream medicine and science (both utter bollocks) is so predictable. Open discussion is rarely possible. It's loaded and one sided, even to the point of arrogantly and contemptuously dismissing the philosophies and practices of other cultures. I am not by the way, making references to particular individuals here, more the fact that there's is so much more to know in many areas. It's not about indiscriminate dismantling, it's about investigating and adding knowledge. Unfortunately, that's very hard with the current paradigm, as there main body of the scientific community has become hopelessly entwined with corporate and political interests and funding. We need brave thinkers and pioneers in so many areas, now more than ever, and I honestly believe that it's starting to happen. I think all of those comments would be entirely fair if you approached these conversations as discussions, rather than asserting your experiences as objective truths. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm open-minded about many things, but I am not receptive to people who TELL me how it is. I don't, I stand by what I have found. That's different. No, it really isn't. And that's exactly the stubborn insistence that causes the problems in these discussions. You complain that others aren't open minded, yet you yourself are closed minded to the possibility that you are mistaken or incorrect in "what you have found". If I showed it to it would spoil the magic. As I said, closed minded. I accept that dowsing might work, you don't accept that it might not work. Who is closed minded? I find it very interesting indeed that I have posted two links re. the closed ranks and minds towards two highly intelligent and qualified members of their own community with differing views. I mentioned the Dawkins/Sheldrake incident to a friend of mine who is a keen Dawkins supporter, and even he was disappointed calling the attitude 'very bad science. Not scientific at all'. This blanket and blinkered stance ignoring of evidence that proves the prevailing attitude is quite staggering and typical.
|
|||
|
Astralcat 742 posts |
Edited Nov 10, 2013, 08:22
Nov 10, 2013, 08:14
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Sanctuary wrote: Fella's, can't you agree that it seems to work for some people What, on the basis you won't or can't provide evidence? No thanks. There's no problem with agreeing it certainly seems to work for some people in their own perception but that's a million miles from saying it works for some people - and that's the precise fault line that has been on display so clearly on this thread and which appears to have eluded you throughout. It's a fact that if I claim I dowse the lottery numbers every week the first thing you're going to say is "what are next week's numbers then?" Yet if a dowser is asked to prove he can dowse that's different and must be refused - and the questioner is at fault! That's this thread in a nutshell so please don't ask people to "agree that it seems to work" as that's doing no more than saying "please believe because I do". If you have real evidence for goodness sake let's have it. (Incidentally, evidence that is gathered "in private" isn't evidence at all, it's hearsay. Equally, saying there is lots of evidence but it can't be measured is silly because that means the person gathering it can't be aware of it themselves. So maybe people just get a "feeling" that doesn't generate results: "I know there are buried stones here but I can't dig them up" or "I know ancient people processed along here but I can't show you as they're long gone" - fine, but that's not dowsing, it's believing one can perceive something without ever being able to confirm it. There's a lot of that about and it's a bit self-indulgent and certainly pointless IMO.) Do you know why in psychic work you can't predict lottery winning numbers etc ? It breaks a basic law. You're using a subtle energy for the wrong purposes. As for hearsay, it's not for the individual concerned, obviously. AS for tests re. dowsing and other phenomena, unfortunately a large amount of negative psychic energy from those conducting the test all too often effects the subject and results. It's all down to subtle energy. It's like trying to meditate in a noisy room. You can't generally do it (unless you're a Zen master of course). Anyway, I'm fully aware of the scepticism here, but it's just a point that I felt needed to be made anyway. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17532-why-dowsing-makes-perfect-sense.html#.Un9B1vmpWSo
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Nov 10, 2013, 10:00
|
||
|
Makkr wrote: But, weren't some sites apparently used unaltered over a couple of thousand years? What would that suggest? Laziness? Which sites do you have in mind?
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Nov 10, 2013, 10:19
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: Fella's, can't you agree that it seems to work for some people but not for others for whatever reason proven or otherwise? We're all amateurs here and can't be expected to know all the answers. The cases where it "seems to " have simpler explantions than the result of someone getting information from rods ,pendulums etc. and are not convincing enough compared with the huge amount of evidence that shows that it doesn't work . Why is it that that people can find all sorts of things without using any of the dowsing paraphernalia or claiming dowsing abilities and when asked to repeat the task manage to do so . Yet when asked to produce the goods dowsers either fail or back off as if it would be demeaning to do so . As the the rods etc are clearly not a prerequisite for the various tasks i.e. no dowser has ever showed any ability to find anything that a non dowser couldn't , why attribute any practical use to them particularly when there is perfectly simple explanation for their movement ? Sorry George but you've been repeating this over and over. I don't want to get into more arguments over this but the fact remains that you don't know every single person who has ever dowsed nor every single recorded result, because much of it, in fact most, has been done in private. Because of that you can only form an opinion on what you personally know, have read and been told. You opinion is formed on incomplete data. No offence intended and we are ALL in the same boat whatever our views. Can we not all just leave it there and move on...and maybe even get back to the original thread that was hijacked eons ago now! Well at least you responded but like everyone other proponent failed to answer the questions . No offence taken or intended .Why argument ? it's a discussion . I have never been witness to every report of the tooth fairy either and have incomplete data , that is not an argument in it's favour . There is no need to use the rods etc as an explanation , the same can easily be achieved without them . "Talented " dowsers when put to the test do no better than chance , if they were more successful we might pay more attention but ordinary punters who couldn't care less do just as well and dowsers never actually do anything that non dowsers can't do , and regularly fare far worse . It's not a recipe for acceptance .lets get back to the original thread by all means . I was the last to post on it , and exhibited some genuine dowsing ,at least Jon was impressed ,or maybe you can google what Jon is thinking ? The answers were in my post George...incomplete data, for everyone. I'm not being drawn in again because it is futile. I was just hoping we could all just move on because common sense dictates this is not going to be resolved. Roy , Then you didn't read or understand the problems . 1) people can find all sorts of things without using any of the dowsing paraphernalia or claiming dowsing abilities and when asked to repeat the task manage to do so . "Incomplete data " does not impact on this point . When do dowsers manage to find anything that non dowsers can't ? When non dowsers find stuff they can repeat it under test conditions if necessary . 2)As the the rods etc are clearly not a prerequisite for the various tasks i.e. no dowser has ever showed any ability to find anything that a non dowser couldn't , why attribute any practical use to them ? Again "incomplete data " has nothing to do with the point . 3)particularly when there is perfectly simple explanation for their movement ? Yet again " incomplete data "has no impact . Common sense and being open minded suggests that there isn't a case for dowsing . (I accept that the last sentence is effectively meaningless but the open minded /close minded /common sense keep being introduced as some sort of part of the argument , they are add nothing . These points have yet to be addressed . I made the last post on the original thread maybe someone can reply to that . It is so frustrating to read this type of exchange. As soon as a light is turned on the subject and some pertinent questions asked, any type of meaningful discussion seems to fall away. There are so many forums on the Internet where you can go to talk about dowsing and not be challenged, I don't understand why if there is such a taste for avoidance of discussion why start talking about it here, or contribute in the first place? It seems to be a similar result on every occasion.
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Nov 10, 2013, 10:23
|
||
|
Astralcat wrote: nigelswift wrote: Sanctuary wrote: Fella's, can't you agree that it seems to work for some people What, on the basis you won't or can't provide evidence? No thanks. There's no problem with agreeing it certainly seems to work for some people in their own perception but that's a million miles from saying it works for some people - and that's the precise fault line that has been on display so clearly on this thread and which appears to have eluded you throughout. It's a fact that if I claim I dowse the lottery numbers every week the first thing you're going to say is "what are next week's numbers then?" Yet if a dowser is asked to prove he can dowse that's different and must be refused - and the questioner is at fault! That's this thread in a nutshell so please don't ask people to "agree that it seems to work" as that's doing no more than saying "please believe because I do". If you have real evidence for goodness sake let's have it. (Incidentally, evidence that is gathered "in private" isn't evidence at all, it's hearsay. Equally, saying there is lots of evidence but it can't be measured is silly because that means the person gathering it can't be aware of it themselves. So maybe people just get a "feeling" that doesn't generate results: "I know there are buried stones here but I can't dig them up" or "I know ancient people processed along here but I can't show you as they're long gone" - fine, but that's not dowsing, it's believing one can perceive something without ever being able to confirm it. There's a lot of that about and it's a bit self-indulgent and certainly pointless IMO.) Do you know why in psychic work you can't predict lottery winning numbers etc ? It breaks a basic law. You're using a subtle energy for the wrong purposes. As for hearsay, it's not for the individual concerned, obviously. AS for tests re. dowsing and other phenomena, unfortunately a large amount of negative psychic energy from those conducting the test all too often effects the subject and results. It's all down to subtle energy. It's like trying to meditate in a noisy room. You can't generally do it (unless you're a Zen master of course). Anyway, I'm fully aware of the scepticism here, but it's just a point that I felt needed to be made anyway. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17532-why-dowsing-makes-perfect-sense.html#.Un9B1vmpWSo 'The wrong purposes'? Who or what has informed you that personal financial gain is the wrong purpose for which to call upon these subtle energies? Is that a belief or a fact?
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Nov 10, 2013, 10:35
|
||
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: I don't understand why if there is such a taste for avoidance of discussion why start talking about it here, or contribute in the first place? It seems to be a similar result on every occasion. In my experience most dowsers are very happy to talk to anyone very amicably till the cows come home until the moment someone is unwise enough to use the word "Test" whereupon they become furious and flouncy. It's most puzzling but it happens all over the internet.
|
|||
|
Astralcat 742 posts |
Nov 10, 2013, 10:35
|
||
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: Astralcat wrote: nigelswift wrote: Sanctuary wrote: Fella's, can't you agree that it seems to work for some people What, on the basis you won't or can't provide evidence? No thanks. There's no problem with agreeing it certainly seems to work for some people in their own perception but that's a million miles from saying it works for some people - and that's the precise fault line that has been on display so clearly on this thread and which appears to have eluded you throughout. It's a fact that if I claim I dowse the lottery numbers every week the first thing you're going to say is "what are next week's numbers then?" Yet if a dowser is asked to prove he can dowse that's different and must be refused - and the questioner is at fault! That's this thread in a nutshell so please don't ask people to "agree that it seems to work" as that's doing no more than saying "please believe because I do". If you have real evidence for goodness sake let's have it. (Incidentally, evidence that is gathered "in private" isn't evidence at all, it's hearsay. Equally, saying there is lots of evidence but it can't be measured is silly because that means the person gathering it can't be aware of it themselves. So maybe people just get a "feeling" that doesn't generate results: "I know there are buried stones here but I can't dig them up" or "I know ancient people processed along here but I can't show you as they're long gone" - fine, but that's not dowsing, it's believing one can perceive something without ever being able to confirm it. There's a lot of that about and it's a bit self-indulgent and certainly pointless IMO.) Do you know why in psychic work you can't predict lottery winning numbers etc ? It breaks a basic law. You're using a subtle energy for the wrong purposes. As for hearsay, it's not for the individual concerned, obviously. AS for tests re. dowsing and other phenomena, unfortunately a large amount of negative psychic energy from those conducting the test all too often effects the subject and results. It's all down to subtle energy. It's like trying to meditate in a noisy room. You can't generally do it (unless you're a Zen master of course). Anyway, I'm fully aware of the scepticism here, but it's just a point that I felt needed to be made anyway. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17532-why-dowsing-makes-perfect-sense.html#.Un9B1vmpWSo 'The wrong purposes'? Who or what has informed you that personal financial gain is the wrong purpose for which to call upon these subtle energies? Is that a belief or a fact? Both :-)
|
| Pages: 26 – [ Previous | 1 … 17 18 19 20 21 22 | Next ] | This topic is locked |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
