Yeah, I’m a bit puzzled by the OP. Why was there one tile in this field that was so precious that several farmers notified you about it? It just seems a bit weird. Was it some sort of boundary marker or what?
And what did this map show you?
A cite would be something written directly by the psychic. A book, or magazine article, or website that comes from her directly. That’s a reliable cite.
An actual recording of her saying it would be acceptable as well.
Hearsay coming from someone who wishes to discredit her is not a reliable cite.
But an unverified story from a “psychic” who wishes to discredit non-believers is a reliable cite?
You can maintain whatever requirements you like as to what you consider acceptable I guess.
For my part a direct report of what a general news reporter said this psychic said to the reporter is good enough for me. I’m not sure why you are requiring such a high standard of proof for a contention that is so widely undisputed.
I don’t know why you think that Emily Nipps, staff reporter from the Tampa Bay Times, would be trying to discredit Levy. Does Nipps have a particular reputation in this respect?
I just have trouble with the thought that fake “psychics” that are capable of producing nothing but excuses could possibly be considered more reliable than professional reporters.
Of course not. Why would you believe that?
Here is a good description of a test involving the finding of underground metal and concrete pipes. It was written by someone who was directly involved with the test itself, so I don’t think the “heresay” tag can be applied here. The applicant went through, and agreed to, all the steps necessary to make it a fair and meaningful test…and failed miserably.
My personal OPINION is that Dowsing rods are an hoax.
As to the scientific experimental methods, they only tell you that within the **parameters **of the experiment, an hypothesis is true or not. The scientific method is not all inclusive but only limited to the experimenter’s limited understanding of the causes (and rightfully so).
Take for example the Dung Beetle. Only recently it was discovered that they navigate using the Milky way. So a scientific experiment, before this discovery, would have tested dung beetles under controlled conditions maybe using sunlight, temperature, magnetic fields, etc. as variables. They may have realized that none of these conditions/variables correlate to the beetle’s navigation capability. But to conclude that the beetle cant navigate is far stretched.
But the conclusion without the new findings wouldn’t be that the dung beetle can’t navigate-it would be that they do navigate, but the method is unknown.
When it comes to dowsers, it isn’t that we don’t know why they are successful-it is that they claim to be successful, but they are NOT. Remember: They are not being tested to see how their “powers” work. They are being tested to see if their powers work.
And so far-they don’t.
If you concentrate on the experiment on the dung beetles, then you can say that under the conditions of the experiment, dung beetles were found not to be able to navigate. if you had no knowledge of dung beetles outside of the experiment, some unscrupulous scientists may say that Dung Beetles cannot navigate and they have proved it with the experiment.
The scientist or the general public usually thinks that all the factors were considered / replicated in the experiment - but this is never so. Experiments are nothing but a confirmation of the hypothesis and the hypothesis is as good as the scientist making them.
Take another example, say the hypothesis is that a baggie of pot buried inside baggage is undetectable within a 5 second test. Now a scientist can take x-ray pictures, gamma ray pictures, a gas chromatograph, a mass spectrometer or any of the devices and measure and prove that indeed it is undetectable. (whereas what the scientist really means is that it is undetectable with the means available). This would be the case if Dogs had not been domesticated centuries earlier.
- I can’t think of any legitimate scientist that thinks all factors are considered in an experiment.
- Experiments are a testing of a hypothesis, not a confirmation.
I’m not sure you are giving an accurate description on how science works or what scientists do.
Let the dowsers come up with a scientific method for proving their extraordinary claims. If they don’t like how all the tests they failed came out then they have to come up with a better one that is scientifically acceptable and also passes the standard for irrelevant criticism they apply to the existing methods.
We can certainly debate this. But the history of science is full of examples.
- Newton (certainly a legitimate scientist) thought light is made of particles
- Hugens “proved” it was waves
- Someone else proved it was particles - maybe Einstein
- Someone else (maybe Bohrs) proved it could be both - and it depends on what you are measuring.
All the scientists above followed the scientific method. But their results were in the domain of their hypothesis - not a wider reality as such.
Its not a criticism - all I am saying is that science does not deal with universal truth. It can only deal with the realm of the hypothesis which is a subset of the whole truth.
“Universal Truth”? Whatever that is, I think that’s a little too broad to discuss here.
I think I’ll stick with the common truth that is available to us now about the subject at hand: Dowsers make claims, but fail to confirm those claims.
That can also be said of the many current day physics theories that need particle accelerators the size of the solar system to prove or disprove them.
Why should the “common dowser” be treated with contempt and the “theoretical physicist” be showered with tax payer money ? :D:D
Is’nt this some kind of elitist bias ? :D:DI am trying to be funny, but get your point.
The experiments were run because of the observed fact that dung beetles can navigate. Earlier experiments were conducted in an attempt to ascertain how the beetles navigated, and they were successful in that they eliminated one set of wrong answers. That dung beetles could navigate was well observed. That there were limitations to that were also well known.
From the paper:
They looked at a known phenomenon, proposed a method to explain it, and tested that method. Once we get to a point with dowsing where there is a known phenomenon we can worry about the other steps.
If I make a claim that I can teleport from Portland, Oregon to London and back, how much time, effort and money should be spent trying to figure out how I do it?
Of course, we’d need a cite to show that skeptic ‘lying’ is ‘not unusual’. By your criteria, it can’t be testimony from a so-called ‘psychic’, since that would be ‘hearsay intending to discredit’. It has to be an admission of lying by the ‘skeptic’.
I wouldn’t expect you to find testimony by a real psychic, of course, since none exist.
If this was 2001, and your name was Jan Hendrik Schön maybe millions of dollars and a prestigious position at Bell Labos.
SDMB is misbehaving - it gives me the message
The following errors occurred with your submission:
The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 2 characters.