For those of you who still see the validity of dowsing might I include the
following attachment from Feder's "Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries (1999) . Note
refernces.
"Robert L. Schuyler" wrote:
> 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]
|