3 ms·
It doesn't work though, that's the point. It's often difficult to convince people that something they have been doing for a long time doesn't work.
by mgraczyk 4y ago
It doesn't work though, that's the point. It's often difficult to convince people that something they have been doing for a long time doesn't work.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoI think that depends on how you're approaching the question. If you pay someone with 40 years of experience that happens to use dowsing rods to find a leak you'll probably get better results than someone off the street. From a business perspective, it might be entirely reasonable to hire someone that uses dousing rods.
- krapp 4y agoIf you're hiring someone with 40 years of experience who happens to use dowsing rods and you believe the dowsing rod is a relevant factor in their success, you need to be fired immediately.
- LarryMullins 4y ago> and you believe the dowsing rod is a relevant factor in their success You added this part..
- krapp 4y ago> it might be entirely reasonable to hire someone that uses dousing rods. It's implied here.
- LarryMullins 4y agoI don't think that implies the dosing rods themselves are what works. It may be reasonable to hire somebody who uses dowsing rods, if they have a lot of experience and can therefore make educated guesses about where the water is. The dowsing rods are just a prop, maybe a psychological crutch that allows the dowser to listen to their gut. But the point is that somebody using a dowsing rod might be good at finding water even though dowsing rods don't work, and therefore it may be entirely reasonable to hire somebody that [incidentally] uses dowsing rods.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoThis was my point. Thanks for expanding it. It may be the case that using rods work, not because they point to water themselves but because they add something else to the process. Maybe they make people pay attention to their surroundings or something like that. Maybe all the people that operate them are part of a trade group that facilitates the transfer of other very valuable knowledge.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoIt was not my implication. My point was to differentiate output from methods and knowledge
- VLM 4y agoThe only relevant factor in the dowser's success is on the long term for every $100 you give the experienced old dowser he will save you $1000 of expensive diesel excavator time. Technically he can probably stay in business providing as little as $103 of value, but it's probably a lot more. The sophistry is the continuous goalpost changing; the dowser can be proven to not have x-ray vision. So? The dowser can be proven to not "sniff" buried water bottles. So? People who have a proven ability to not make money in the field as a dowser, when tested for dowsing abilities, results show they are very bad at it (LOL, this is the funniest). Or in this example, well we've proven rods don't do anything, so ... so what? No one can prove that giving the experienced old guy $100 does not result, in the long run, on saving $1000 of excavator time. I'd keep giving the old guy $100 LOL as I'm not running a charity. Just because you can't replace or even usefully study management skill or artistic ability or technical "hunches" doesn't mean they don't exist, as clearly they're economically viable.