3 ms·

Wikipedia isn't, but the studies listed on it can be. Unless science is all just junk?

by Novosell 2y ago

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 ..)

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 ..)