3 ms·
>(assuming such signals exist.) They most certainly do. I've done a decent amount of reading on using ecological cues to infer stuff about what's below ground
by throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>(assuming such signals exist.)
They most certainly do.
I've done a decent amount of reading on using ecological cues to infer stuff about what's below ground. For applications such as mining, construction and farming the science is well understood. The dowsers are probably just taking a good guess about the substrate based on what they can see above. Between plant life, evidence of erosion, soil type, climate and everything else you can observe at the surface you can combine things you know about those things and use logic in order to rule things out and make some surprisingly accurate predictions about environmental conditions that you cannot directly observe.
The dowsers can probably "detect" water better than a random guess even if they can't explain how because they're probably observing the ecology on a subconscious level and have a lot of practice. That said, I'd bet money on the scientists being right about the whole rods and gravity thing being pure BS.
- efficax 5y agohttps://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/debunking-dowsing-5028261/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/debunking-dows... Dowers are not better than chance. They’re exactly the same as chance!
- kangnkodos 5y agoSo you're saying that even though scientists have completely debunked the idea that water witches' success rate is above random chance, you would still bet money on the unscientific idea that the dowsers do better than chance. Does this give you any insight into a person who would bet their life on the unscientific idea that vaccines are dangerous? I don't understand either position, so I'm looking to you for more details.