There is an excellent anthropological book on the Roswell, NM "incident"
(I can not recall the title right now). One of the good things about
that analysis, which does a fine job of showing there was no "incident"
and then analysing the beliefs that have grown up around it, is that
the authors start off by stating the since life is a product of natural
processes, could there be life in the universe beyond earth [yes], could
there be intelligent life [yes], could intelligent beings have visited
the earth [yes] - does that make the Roswell "incident" true [very
unlikely].

I did not detect such an openess about dowsing. Some of the people
discussing the issue may indeed know a literature the rest of us are
ignorant about - testing and not confirming dowsing - but that was not, I
believe, true for most of those in the discussion. "Scientific bigotry" is
alive and well. I happen to believe in science, and think that archaeology
is a scientific field and that there is an approximation of reality that
only science [not other "stories'] can give to humanity. That is why it is
so important that specific conclusions or general bodies of theory not be
allowed to become true by definition.

When I held the two (coat hangers) in Utah something happened. I never
seriously considered using dowsing as a substitute field technique but
I have always been curious about what caused the rods to move (or seem
to move). Was it the length of the rods (gravity), was it me, or were
they attracted to something [my Navajo belt buckle?]? It was probably
one or two and not the last. Do the experimentors discuss this question?

                                                        RLS









At 11:00 AM 1/22/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>So the list is asked, "what about dowsing?" and we give our opinions, pro
>or con, and those who badmouth dowsing are immediately called "scientific
>bigots," and "closed minds."  Interesting discussion method.  (On the other
>hand, I've heard computer technology referred to as "white collar voodoo")
>
>A number of people believe in or have believed in astrology, alchemy, the
>Flat Earth, crystal heavenly spheres, space aliens and so on.  Is it
>scientific bigotry to dismiss those beliefs, or do we have to revisit them
>and throw them out all over again every generation?  In anthropology we've
>tossed the ideas that bumps on the head tell us about personality, that
>primitive people are inferior to western Europeans, and so on ad nauseum;
>are we being close-minded when we do so?  Should we seriously reconsider
>those arguments again?
>
>To paraphrase a remark made earlier in this discussion, "if dowsing worked,
>we'd be using it."  It doesn't work, which is why we don't use it.  This is
>not bigotry, it's pragmatics.
>
>Jake
>
>
Robert L. Schuyler
University of Pennsylvania Museum
33rd & Spruce Streets
Philadelphia, PA l9l04-6324

Tel: (215) 898-6965
Fax: (215) 898-0657
[log in to unmask]