3 ms·

The studies section on the Wikipedia page for dowsing would disagree with you.

by Novosell 2y ago

boffinAudio 2y ago
Wikipedia is not a source of truth - only collective associative reality.
- Novosell 2y ago
  Wikipedia isn't, but the studies listed on it can be. Unless science is all just junk?
  - boffinAudio 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - digging 2y ago
      Your own study does not inspire confidence: > Several things that Mr. Carl does while dowsing don't fit into many of the definitions that have been proposed. Everyone who believes in it agrees it works, but not how it works? That's a classic sign of witchcraft. > There are many aspects of dowsing that were not addressed by this experiment and these results do not apply to them. Additionally, many people claim to have a dowsing sense but are not reputable. Beware of anyone who wields this work as proof of their skill. As in any scientific experiment, repeatability, under the scrutiny of the scientific community, is the determinant of valid results. Unless this validation occurs, these findings will remain experimental data. In other words, do not take this paper as proof of dousing and do not trust someone who links to this PDF to prove dousing is real. ... Here's the thing, nobody is here saying you didn't go out into the desert and find water. (Although, you're a random comment on the internet, so I'm not particularly inclined to believe a word of it either.) It's just that "dousing" isn't a likely explanation for how( you found water. At the very best, "dousing" as a name can be equated to "dark matter" - something is happening, but we know virtually nothing about what is happening or how. Explanations that rely on the type of wood used, or claim to be able to find oil* and lead in addition to water, just don't make sense. With dark matter, yes we're exploring as many explanations as we can, but most scientists agree that the more complicated solutions (such as "gravity works differently at very large scales") are less likely. And they still have a mechanism.
      - boffinAudio 2y ago
        >Everyone who believes in it agrees it works, but not how it works? That's a classic sign of witchcraft. No, its a sign of incomplete scientific investigations. Or are you going to tell me everyone knows how SRRI's work, to take the most overt example of incomplete sciencey/witchcraft? (We don't know how they work, just that they do work, so hey .. ship the pills, witches ..)
QuarterReptile 2y ago
The studies section of Wikipedia is much less compelling than you let on (only two are described, with limited accessibility to the others), but the important question is: do you prize mostly the mechanism or the outcome? The poster talking about finding water in a desert presumably values the water. The studies are more interested in two related questions: the mechanism of the technique and whether its practitioners understand it. To the latter, the answer is an emphatic 'no'. For the former, the studies use various experimental schema to evaluate hypothesized mechanisms, each time yielding a refutation of those mechanisms. Going from a refutation of specific mechanisms to a rejection of the practice is extrapolation, not sound science. Part of living in an intelligible universe is accepting that there are phenomena that await discovery, description, and generalization. Whether that is true of this 'dowsing' technique is a separate question. When a flat-Earther fails to address time zones, distance to the horizon, stars, great circle routes over the poles, etc., this dismissiveness is justified, but that does not appear to be the case from what you have cited, and the practice of science is worse off for you insinuating otherwise. Edit: All of this is apart from the utility of someone doggedly pursuing a course of action which he is convinced will bear fruit as contrasted to someone timidly sampling among options without ever making equivalent commitment.
- mistermann 2y ago
  > The studies section of Wikipedia is much less compelling than you let on He didn't indicate any magnitude, your subconscious mind interpreted that part, merged it into your experience, and here we are. As the saying goes: perception is reality (a technically true statement, but the particular meaning of the word "is" (there are many) is very important to understand this saying properly). This is not the only error in your comment by the way. I am curious: how many hours have you invested in studying consciousness, and in what ways? How about psychedelics, have you substantial experience (and do you study your experiences, and those of others, or just do it for fun)? How about meditation? How about epistemology (ie: Gettier Problems(!!!), non-binary logic, phenomenology, cultural norms of cognition (which puts limits on how accurately/soundly you are taught and even ~allowed to think), etc)? How about Direct vs Indirect Realism (did you even consider this, at all while you were writing your comment)? Are you going to learn a lesson from this and exert effort in the future to distinguish between shared reality and your personal local "reality", culturally and ideologically conditioned Human Being? Or, are you going to continue behaving inline with your peers here, the easy and pleasurable approach, putting people like me who are trapped on this planet (which is warming up due to your ideologies) with you people at ever increasing levels of risk? edit: fixed spelling, misplaced brackets

The studies section on the Wikipedia page for dowsing would disagree with you.

boffinAudio 2y ago

Wikipedia is not a source of truth - only collective associative reality.

Novosell 2y ago
Wikipedia isn't, but the studies listed on it can be. Unless science is all just junk?
- boffinAudio 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - digging 2y ago
    Your own study does not inspire confidence: > Several things that Mr. Carl does while dowsing don't fit into many of the definitions that have been proposed. Everyone who believes in it agrees it works, but not how it works? That's a classic sign of witchcraft. > There are many aspects of dowsing that were not addressed by this experiment and these results do not apply to them. Additionally, many people claim to have a dowsing sense but are not reputable. Beware of anyone who wields this work as proof of their skill. As in any scientific experiment, repeatability, under the scrutiny of the scientific community, is the determinant of valid results. Unless this validation occurs, these findings will remain experimental data. In other words, do not take this paper as proof of dousing and do not trust someone who links to this PDF to prove dousing is real. ... Here's the thing, nobody is here saying you didn't go out into the desert and find water. (Although, you're a random comment on the internet, so I'm not particularly inclined to believe a word of it either.) It's just that "dousing" isn't a likely explanation for how( you found water. At the very best, "dousing" as a name can be equated to "dark matter" - something is happening, but we know virtually nothing about what is happening or how. Explanations that rely on the type of wood used, or claim to be able to find oil* and lead in addition to water, just don't make sense. With dark matter, yes we're exploring as many explanations as we can, but most scientists agree that the more complicated solutions (such as "gravity works differently at very large scales") are less likely. And they still have a mechanism.
    - boffinAudio 2y ago
      >Everyone who believes in it agrees it works, but not how it works? That's a classic sign of witchcraft. No, its a sign of incomplete scientific investigations. Or are you going to tell me everyone knows how SRRI's work, to take the most overt example of incomplete sciencey/witchcraft? (We don't know how they work, just that they do work, so hey .. ship the pills, witches ..)

QuarterReptile 2y ago

The studies section of Wikipedia is much less compelling than you let on (only two are described, with limited accessibility to the others), but the important question is: do you prize mostly the mechanism or the outcome? The poster talking about finding water in a desert presumably values the water. The studies are more interested in two related questions: the mechanism of the technique and whether its practitioners understand it. To the latter, the answer is an emphatic 'no'. For the former, the studies use various experimental schema to evaluate hypothesized mechanisms, each time yielding a refutation of those mechanisms. Going from a refutation of specific mechanisms to a rejection of the practice is extrapolation, not sound science. Part of living in an intelligible universe is accepting that there are phenomena that await discovery, description, and generalization. Whether that is true of this 'dowsing' technique is a separate question. When a flat-Earther fails to address time zones, distance to the horizon, stars, great circle routes over the poles, etc., this dismissiveness is justified, but that does not appear to be the case from what you have cited, and the practice of science is worse off for you insinuating otherwise. Edit: All of this is apart from the utility of someone doggedly pursuing a course of action which he is convinced will bear fruit as contrasted to someone timidly sampling among options without ever making equivalent commitment.

mistermann 2y ago
> The studies section of Wikipedia is much less compelling than you let on He didn't indicate any magnitude, your subconscious mind interpreted that part, merged it into your experience, and here we are. As the saying goes: perception is reality (a technically true statement, but the particular meaning of the word "is" (there are many) is very important to understand this saying properly). This is not the only error in your comment by the way. I am curious: how many hours have you invested in studying consciousness, and in what ways? How about psychedelics, have you substantial experience (and do you study your experiences, and those of others, or just do it for fun)? How about meditation? How about epistemology (ie: Gettier Problems(!!!), non-binary logic, phenomenology, cultural norms of cognition (which puts limits on how accurately/soundly you are taught and even ~allowed to think), etc)? How about Direct vs Indirect Realism (did you even consider this, at all while you were writing your comment)? Are you going to learn a lesson from this and exert effort in the future to distinguish between shared reality and your personal local "reality", culturally and ideologically conditioned Human Being? Or, are you going to continue behaving inline with your peers here, the easy and pleasurable approach, putting people like me who are trapped on this planet (which is warming up due to your ideologies) with you people at ever increasing levels of risk? edit: fixed spelling, misplaced brackets