|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » John Michell lecture |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
May 05, 2016, 08:47
|
||
That rather proves my point, his claim that there's no machine to measure if dowsing works is untrue. Of course there is.
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Edited May 05, 2016, 09:10
May 05, 2016, 08:57
|
||
|
[quote="Sanctuary "Sometimes there is no definitive answer." But there are definitive refutations when you get to the nitty gritty . "Came across this a while back which I saved... "I had a guy round on me, in public, that my dowsing was bullshit. He was nasty. So. Giving him my best smile, I asked him if he had any children. He had. I asked how much he loved them? He said, I love them. Fine. How much do you love them? I can't answer that. I just love them. So, there isn't a machine to measure how much you love them? No. So, in that case, going by your laws of physics that you are imposing on me, if you can't measure it, weigh it, calibrate it, your Love doesn't exist?"[/quote] Typical illogicality /category error of the dowser . If the dowsing response is to be considered as an emotion ,/state or poetry should we forget about what they keep telling us they believe they can find ?
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
May 05, 2016, 09:09
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: [quote="Sanctuary "Sometimes there is no definitive answer." But there are definitive refutations when you get to the nitty gritty . I disagree George. (Cerrig please note). There are no definitive answers offered" which is quite different.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Edited May 05, 2016, 09:14
May 05, 2016, 09:13
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: tiompan wrote: [quote="Sanctuary "Sometimes there is no definitive answer." But there are definitive refutations when you get to the nitty gritty . I disagree George. (Cerrig please note). There are no definitive answers offered" which is quite different. There are errors ,not beliefs , that can be refuted . I just mentioned some done after R's post about men an toll .
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Edited May 05, 2016, 09:24
May 05, 2016, 09:21
|
||
|
Ah! that's it isn't it - 'a category mistake'. If Michell's insights are along the lines of "I know an airship landed at a temple in London in prehistory", if that's come about through Revelation (and digging finds no airship, or you get cross if I suggest we ought to dig for an airship) - then to be intellectually honest about that insight, one should put it in the "imaginative interpretive and possibly inspiring to others' creativity" category. Which doesn't actually denigrate it or the person who came up with it. It just acknowledges what sort of thing it is. Maybe no-one's even suggesting it's supposed to be true in the sense that 'today is thursday'. (Or are they? That's why I want to hear from Cerrig) Then there's the other type of thing, the 'this stone lines up with that one', which is demonstrably true or untrue. So should be put in a different, more scientific category. And obviously, you're requiring proof that if he says X is Y degrees from Z, that that's correct. But, you're claiming that actually Michell didn't measure these things properly in the first place. So what happened there? Did he mismeasure? Did he just make it up to fit his theory that this stone and that one lined up because of earth energies or somesuch? If he mismeasured, then his theory is just plain wrong. If he deliberately fixed the results to make his theory look right, then that doesn't look particularly good either. So I'm intrigued to hear Cerrig's response to this. Are the measurements in fact correct (and so Michell's theories are supported)? Or does it not matter if the measurements are wrong and don't prove anything because the whole thing isn't supposed to be scientifically true, it's more about being "Visionary"? Go on, I'm genuinely intrigued.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
May 05, 2016, 09:25
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: There are errors ,not beliefs , that can be refuted . Which perhaps lead to erroneous massive self-belief. That would explains a lot of the agro towards refuters perhaps.? Diss leys, diss me....
|
|||
|
cerrig 187 posts |
May 05, 2016, 12:42
|
||
|
I think I've been quite clear with my stance here, which is simply this; John Michell was visionary in his insights, and his work on the canon of number and ancient metrology was ground breaking. I never actually mentioned any of the other stuff that George has brought up, because I wasn't aware of it. I'm glad now, because I may have made the same mistake as George, and judge Johns true legacy by his earlier musings. That would have been a daft thing to do. The reason I can say this is that in my wanderings in the hills of Wales something has turned up. While a lot of data had been gathered, it didn't really make an awful lot of sense, especially when compared to the presently accepted models of history, or mathematics. It was only through comparing what had turned up with the work of John Michell, and some others of his ilk, that the true nature of this "something" became apparent. This is currently being put together in a form that can be published, and scrutinised, by anybody who cares to do so. This is not an overnight process, so may take a little while yet, but that's publishing for you. When this comes out, and it is coming out, John Michells work will be evident all over it. Not as the original inspiration for it, but as an integral part of it, along with smatterings from some other new age writers. Obviously, I could be making all this up, and the doubters and cynics might be right. As with most things, there is probably good reason for believing that, at least in some peoples viewpoints. But that is looking at all this from a limited viewpoint, without all the information. Certainties about current models will not be such a cosy option in the future when ludicrous statements turn out to be true. I won't be expanding on any of this. Anyone who is interested will just have to wait. I realise this will give ammunition to those who want it. Go ahead, make the most of it if that's your thing. There are some uncomfortable truths coming, for some people at least. Nigel Swift; if you choose to take offence where there is none, please yourself. If you choose to make an association where there was none, go ahead. Though why you would make a link that wasn't intended is a bit curious, unless you recognised that maybe it could have applied to you. But why would you do that?
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
May 05, 2016, 13:10
|
||
|
cerrig wrote: Though why you would make a link that wasn't intended is a bit curious, unless you recognised that maybe it could have applied to you. But why would you do that? But Cerrig, that contains your THIRD implied insult running, making your denials even less convincing! Please stop now. It's gloriously sunny again isn't it? I'm going for a little wander down by the Severn. Et toi?
|
|||
|
Andy Norfolk 58 posts |
May 05, 2016, 14:12
|
||
|
I'm surprised to see this discussion taking the turn it has. John Michel was (here's a surprise) interested in the possibility of alignments of ancient sites. He was also well aware of the various criticisms made of the whole idea. So he set out to test it. He came to Cornwall and went to West Penwith where there were many known standing stones. Yes - he knew there were menhirs here because he'd read Borlase etc. He chose to do this bit of research in West Penwith so that he could use one class of ancient monument to see if they were aligned. He concentrated on menhirs to avoid the criticism of monuments form many periods occurring in an alignment. As he was doing this he found more menhirs, such as the one at Sheffield. He did this before any kind of hand-held gps was available. This could account for a some errors with his grid references. However he went and looked on the ground and checked on large scale OS maps. Errors in published grid refs in his book are an irrelevance. His alignments still stand up to scrutiny very well. They are not fantasy in that they are clear alignments of ancient standing stones visible in the landscape. There is a noticeable intervisibility of many of the stones. Some of you appear to dislike the whole concept of alignments of ancient sites, which is a touch ironic now that professional archaeologist talk about this a lot nowadays. It is unfair to diss John Michell for bothering to go and do real research in the landscape if you haven't at least been to look at the alignments he found. Some people take all this very seriously - here is a link to some work done by Palden Jenkins which some of you will hate and some of you will love. https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1dUcFxhue1W8H0WR-bbeAya47Zi4
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
May 05, 2016, 14:22
|
||
|
Andy Norfolk wrote: I'm surprised to see this discussion taking the turn it has. John Michel was (here's a surprise) interested in the possibility of alignments of ancient sites. He was also well aware of the various criticisms made of the whole idea. So he set out to test it. He came to Cornwall and went to West Penwith where there were many known standing stones. Yes - he knew there were menhirs here because he'd read Borlase etc. He chose to do this bit of research in West Penwith so that he could use one class of ancient monument to see if they were aligned. He concentrated on menhirs to avoid the criticism of monuments form many periods occurring in an alignment. As he was doing this he found more menhirs, such as the one at Sheffield. He did this before any kind of hand-held gps was available. This could account for a some errors with his grid references. However he went and looked on the ground and checked on large scale OS maps. Errors in published grid refs in his book are an irrelevance. His alignments still stand up to scrutiny very well. They are not fantasy in that they are clear alignments of ancient standing stones visible in the landscape. There is a noticeable intervisibility of many of the stones. Some of you appear to dislike the whole concept of alignments of ancient sites, which is a touch ironic now that professional archaeologist talk about this a lot nowadays. It is unfair to diss John Michell for bothering to go and do real research in the landscape if you haven't at least been to look at the alignments he found. Some people take all this very seriously - here is a link to some work done by Palden Jenkins which some of you will hate and some of you will love. https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1dUcFxhue1W8H0WR-bbeAya47Zi4 Hi Andy, good to see you here. Didn't realise you were a member. Nice post, especially the bit about actually going out into the field and checking for yourself. Mr Google can't always do that!
|
| Pages: 36 – [ Previous | 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
