That would work well. It could also be that they were on something tacky enough to keep them in place but not actually adhered to the surface.
That recalls this classic XKCD comic:
Not entirely accurate: dowsing was seriously used by the oil industry, including some of the majors. They started dying down in the 20s as more scientific methods got up to speed and largely died out by the 60s when computer signal processing was pretty much the final nail in the coffin for them. The dowsers included lots of people with advanced degrees, too, so not just con artists and cranks. Some fields, you were going to find oil no matter where you drilled so, like the case for water, confirmation bias helping things along.
The term ‘doodlebugger’ is still used to refer to exploration geophysicists, especially ones who are older or out in the field, though mainly in an ironic sense most of the last century.
Some, but not all. So did the ones using it “make a killing” compared to those who didn’t?
Again, it’s not surprising that some people use these things; that’s what irrational belief is all about. The point is, none of them ended up head-and-shoulders above the rest, because dowsing didn’t actually work.
If it did work, the results would have been noticeable, and immediately copied by all competitors.
Okay, I wasn’t sure with how fuzzy the video was. I kept going back and forth between them.
Sure. Those majors are still around and huge. It really was effectively all of the majors. Smaller players did other, equally unscientific things.
It didn’t have to “make a killing”. Just had to look convincing enough for somebody at the top to embrace it.
Yes, it has subsequently been replaced, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t work (though we now solidly know it doesn’t), just that it doesn’t work as well as other methods. Same as the other things - not being used primarily doesn’t mean they don’t work, it just means they aren’t as profitable or useful, which is an important distinction in this case. It’s a logical fallacy we see all the time around here, e.g. “masks don’t prevent 100% of COVID, so they don’t work at all”. Just because we happen to know in this case that the provided examples are bunkum doesn’t mean the logic behind the statement is good.
Homeopathy is another example. There are some private hospitals that have not exactly embraced it but have included it in their practices to attract more business, especially from people who would refuse medical treatment otherwise. Profitable is profitable, and in the case of people who distrust modern medicine, perhaps even beneficial (in that they can be convinced to incorporate scientific based care as well).
Randall is a smart guy but he does oversimplify from time to time. It’s just a comic strip, after all, no matter how clever it often is.
But all of that falls under his alt-text, “Not to be confused with ‘making money selling this stuff to OTHER people who think it works’, which corporate accountants and actuaries have zero problems with.”
You can sell anything anyone wants to buy. That’s different from using that thing to create wealth, rather than just move it around.
Eh. That’s basically con artistry.
This is basically a case of knowing the right answer and not realizing some logical shortcuts have been taken when the answer is derived.
Some people do believe those things work. Just because they aren’t used to “make a killing” is not a proof they don’t work, merely evidence they aren’t necessarily as effective. As above, that’s the same sort of logic used to justify the idea that masking is useless for preventing the spread of respiratory illnesses.
Skepchick take down of the NYT article. Nothing new that hasn’t been covered in this thread, but hopefully it will reach some more people.
Penn Jillette gave significant time on his podcast to talking about the NY Times article. He wasn’t too happy about it.
At least for me this doesn’t lead to a podcast.
That’s the web site for Penn’s podcast. There’s a link to subscribe. Or as they say, you may subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
As I understand it then, the only way to hear the podcast is to subscribe to it, is that right?
Which episode does he talk about the NY Times article?
The latest episode, which came out yesterday.
I’m not sure of other ways to listen besides subscribing. I think Penn simulcasts on YouTube, so there might be a channel for it. But if you have an iPhone I believe just using the built in podcast app should play it as a one-off selection.
You can download or stream any episode without subscribing, just like any podcast. Just search for Penn’s Sunday School in your podcast app.
Hope this is worth the bump: Geller not mentioned by name, but a lovely picture of a bent spoon today with the wonderfully credulous caption “An example of a spoon bent with mind concentration in the Lily Dale Museum.” [Literally] unbelievable!
I missed that Penn Jillette had addressed this last time.
Since I went to the trouble to find a link, I thought I’d also link it here for everyone’s convenience. (It starts at 1:25).
David Segal/Galactic Unitard - Penn's Sunday School
Episode 926 (July 16, 2023)
It was a bit harder to find. Like most podcast websites, Penn has a list of episodes and links. But it stopped updating in 2020, as did his YouTube channel. I had to look directly at the RSS/podcast feed and hunt for the URL in there. But it’s still a webpage, and not just a bare MP3.
Worth the bump I say, but of an entirely different category than the article discussed in the OP. Latest article profiles a small Spiritualist community in upstate New York. Most 19th century utopian communities never made it to the 21st century; it’s interesting that this one is still kicking. Ok, it’s not quite utopian, but it is a community centered on a fringy religion.
Apparently 3 adherents are suing the Lily Dale after they were refused the title of medium: they scored close to but not quite 85%. I suspect there are issues not quite expressed in the article.
Mediums contact the dead, or such is the central belief of Spiritualism. Houdini was not a fan.
Spiritualism was still active and kicking at least in the early '70s. I remember reading an expose once by a former Spiritualist preacher who was active around that time and being bewildered that anyone could fall for such ridiculous parlor tricks.