Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:17:10 -0600 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hopefully my last post on the subject. I've been surprised by some people
mentioning a bad tone to this thread. I don't think any of the posts have
been very bad, except the one explicit flame troll. I hope no one has been
overly offended by anything I've said. I have just tried to present the
argument that scientists should not rely on anecdotal evidence to support
the use of dowsing. It doesn't matter if it has "worked" for you. Lots of
things seem to work, until one thoroughly tests them and finds they don't.
Some have mentioned my use of "self-delusion." There is nothing pejorative
in this. Self-delusion is standard operating procedure for human beings. The
scientific method evolved as a way of breaking through self-delusion; it is
a matter of conjecture whether it is ever really possible.
For those wanting to see a review of evidence showing that dowsing, at least
for water, does not work, and I mean does not work period, no ifs, ands, or
buts, check out http://skepdic.com/dowsing.html and the references cited.
For those who think dowsing on archaeological sites does work, I ask you to
dedicate yourselves to demonstrating with proper methodology that it does.
You will be doing a great service to the field. It will one of the greatest
advances in archaeology in the last few decades.
Mike Conner
|
|
|