Sender: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:21:58 -0600 |
MIME-version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-transfer-encoding: |
7bit |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
on 1/22/01 9:34 AM, SouthArc at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Given the general abuse being transmitted on this subject, I'm a little
> hesitant to put forth our experience with dowsing but here goes anyway.>
snip
> So dowsing does seem to do something. But why I can't tell you. And it
> seemed to yield the same results for even the most skeptical of users. In
> any event, it certainly isn't going to hurt anything to play with it and see
> what happens. What happened to having an open mind?
I haven't seen much abuse on this subject, except an early red-neck jibe
that was explained. The main abuse I see is the abuse of the scientific
method. Most archaeologists want to be considered scientists, but science
isn't supposed to rely on anecdotal evidence like "dowsing seems to do
something." Yuri Gellar seemed to bend spoons with his mind and fix watches
over the TV, but he didn't. I don't think most dowsers are frauds, just
self-deluded. This is an unscientific assertion, but I bet anybody with a
brain and normal eyesight could do as well as a dowser in finding utility
lines, water lines, etc. based on surface indications. I found a gray-water
drain in my backyard based on differential grass growth and I didn't need a
dowsing rod. Again see http://www.randi.org/research/challenge/dowsing.html
for James Randi's take on dowsing. If you don't know him, he is a magician
who offers a cash award to people who can prove the paranormal.
on 1/22/01 9:24 AM, Robert L. Schuyler at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> P.S. You people are really a bunch of "scientific" bigots. Think about
> hypnosis - if you did not know about it and someone described it to you.
If asking for controlled, repeatable experiments showing that dowsing works
makes me a scientific bigot, I wear that label proudly.
on 1/22/01 9:57 AM, Michael Striker at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> I find it interesting to see a clear division among the historical
> archaeologists on the list. There are those who look at this question from
> a perspective that slants towards the scientific, and those with a
> perspective that slants towards the anthropological. I'm not criticizing
> either perspective, just making an observation. Equating dowsing to voodoo
> is a great example. Mircea Eliade would be delighted.
I hope you don't mean that accepting dowsing is more anthropological than
not accepting it. As an anthropologist, I know people's belief systems will
define their reality. But how do I use that in archaeology? Do I use dowsing
without a firm demonstration that it works? Do I ignore parts of a site
where dowsing doesn't show anything?
Mike Conner
|
|
|