Your point is well taken. But I would like to address this comment:
> Maybe dowsing works, maybe it doesn't. If an investigator is out to
prove
> that something doesn't work, he'll likely be able to do so.
>
On the other hand the investigator may make a reasonable effort to
understand dowsing without a bias, one way or the other. As previously
stated, we approached dowsing openly and by sampling the entire spectrum
of dowsing device examples. Again, the common denominator is that there
is no repeatability from device to device, condition to condition or
operator to operator. If you want this to work for you, you're just
going to have to believe in it. In this manner, the inevitable field
failures can be explained away by any number of variables and you can
remain confident in your dowsing "technology".
There are countless reported cases of successful water witching and
buried utility features having been dowsed. Some proponents believe
that the phenomenon is a result of a connection between antennae
(dowsing rods) and the "minds eye". Others suggest that there is a
magnetic differential influence caused by underground water sources and
the like that are sensed through the dowsers antennae. Yet, taking into
consideration the second instance, this is not how electronic dowsing
instruments are designed. Electronic dowsing, the more advanced and
subsequently more expensive "technology", is intended to exploit the
first condition and adding a liberal pinch of techno-jargon helps to
close the deal.
Accepting that a pair of coat hangers can sense magnetic disturbances
and or fluctuations at the same level as the most sensitive legitimate
electronic instrumentation available IS akin to believing in voodoo. I
submit that it would require pharmaceuticals to arrive at this
conclusion.
No offense, but dowsing with coat hangers to locate human burials in an
archaeological context is ludicrous from jump street. This is very
difficult to accomplish and certainly not a slam dunk even with
state-of-the-art remote sensing technologies that are available today.
Rich Green
Historic Archaeological Research
4338 Hadley Court
West Lafayette, IN 47906
Office: (765) 464-8735
Home: (765) 464-8095
http://www.har-indy.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Striker" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: dowsing
> I certainly didn't mean that it is more "anthropological" to accept
dowsing,
> and, although I've seen dowsers be successful, I wouldn't necessarily
> recommend it as a method to be used in archaeology. I also wouldn't
expect
> any remote sensing method be used without being complimented by other
> methods (such as excavation or archival research). Certainly if one
is
> using a metal detector, it would be poor methodology to ignore areas
where
> the metal detector didn't show anything. My comment on perspective
was
> directed more towards the tone of the responses rather than the
content.
> Calling a dowser self-deluded or referring to it as voodoo is probably
not
> rooted in cultural relativism.
>
> Voodoo works through a combination of pharmacology and belief.
> Phamacologically, a practitioner can put a victim into a coma that
appears
> to be death. To a scientist, the victim is simply in a chemically
induced
> coma, but to the participants, the victim has died and is brought
back.
> That is a distinction created by the belief system of the observers.
>
> While all archaeologists apply scientific methods to their work, some
are
> more prone to cultural relatavistic thinking in their work and in
their
> daily lives. The discussion of dowsing reminded me of the current
debate in
> the SAA Bulletins between those supporting integration of Native
American
> perspectives and oral history in archaeology and those who attribute
little
> or no value to that perspective.
>
> Your comments below show that you are clearly approaching the issue
from a
> scientific perspective. Unfortunately, when phenomena are not easily
> explained scientifically, science offers a poor, and often
unscientific
> explanation, which is required by the belief system. Shamanic healing
seems
> to work. From a cultural relativist perspective, it works because the
> shaman has healed the patient, or induced healing through spirit
guides.
> Scientifically, explanations are offered that rely on the patient
believing
> that it works, so their immune system benefits from a positive
attitude. If
> the simplest explanation is the correct one, which explanation is
simpler
> depends upon one belief system.
>
> Maybe dowsing works, maybe it doesn't. If an investigator is out to
prove
> that something doesn't work, he'll likely be able to do so.
>
> Michael Striker
> ASC Group, Inc.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
> Michael Conner
> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 11:22 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: dowsing
>
>
> 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
>
>
|