So dowsing falls into the category of things that seem to work for reasons we don't understand: you could postulate that we are sensitive to electro-magnetic or gravitational fields for instance. Most people never learn to use their peripheral vision properly so it doesn't seem unlikely that almost no-one would learn to use an esoteric sense like that. It's within the realm of phenomena that might need explaining, but stories about how it works that invoked (as a random example since I don't know what the standard stories are in this case) fairies pulling on the end of the stick don't really deserve much time spent on them.
Medical stuff is complicated since I'm reasonably sure that any practice that reduces the stress on the system improves clinical outcomes either passively - through the placebo effect - or possibly even actively by using the mind to redirect resources or release resources to where they're needed through tricks. As I understand it the standard story about homeopathy works isn't based in anything scientific, which is why homeopathy is such an easy target for debunkers.
There's a distinction between derision as guild protection - which happens within science as well as outside it, accepting the stories put forward to explain phenomena and accepting the stories which don't even explain any phenomena.
Oh yea, I understand that, but I worry sometimes that a lot of the debunkers don't. F'rinstance I've never really paid attention to any of the theories of how dowsing works for the simple reason that I know nobody knows (but I've never heard the one about fairies). And there are way too many kooks and nutjobs floating around to want to give any credence to anything they say. Sadly the scientists tend to look for the kooks to give them the debunking ammunition rather than look at the evidence.
So there are too many allegedly "rational" people who will discount the real, repeatable & demonstrable phenomena of dowsing, because they dislike the idea that there is stuff that cannot be incorporated into the current ideology of science. Plus, I'll grant you, that you can take dowsing into other, less verifiable or esoteric places, which really strain the credulity of the strictly "rational". So they lump it all into one place called the round file called rubbish, cos it's easier.
Kinda like the theory for Ice-Age civilisations that were drowned when sea levels rose and the only artefact of that period to have survived was the Sphinx. I'm quite happy to accept that because it's plausible and there is undersea evidence to suppport it. What I and most people are not prepared to accept are the ravings of people such as Graham Hancock about ancient wisdom and apes from Mars which unfortunately seem currently intimately involved with any discussion of the subject.
Materials scientists will tell you that the standard story about homeopathy makes sense to them. Plus, as you can get veterinary homeopathic practitioners who create genuine improvments in animals not susceptible to the placebo effect, I'd suggest it's worth looking at.
And acupuncture works. I'm sorry but we can measure it's affect, it's just that western science has no theory for it and so can't understand it. It's as if stone age man could wish thuderstorms to not exist cos they didn't understand them. Not having a theory for a phenomenon suggest you should examine it, not pretend it's not there. keep to the Fen Causeway
but I've never heard the one about fairies
So there are too many allegedly "rational" people who will discount the real, repeatable & demonstrable phenomena of dowsing, because they dislike the idea that there is stuff that cannot be incorporated into the current ideology of science.
Materials scientists will tell you that the standard story about homeopathy makes sense to them.
And acupuncture works.
So there are too many allegedly "rational" people who will discount the real, repeatable & demonstrable phenomena of dowsing, because they dislike the idea that there is stuff that cannot be incorporated into the current ideology of science. That's just silly.
That's just silly.
Then you haven't met the dogmatic denialists I have when I've tried to discuss the subject of dowsing. They may be silly, but reporting their attitudes is not. keep to the Fen Causeway
I like to think that any inexplicable pheomenon or construct that has been around for thousands of years has some value which we might not yet understand or have erased from our culture. I don't believe in dowsers, but I am not prepared to dismiss dowsing. Same for many other oddities - it is too easy to dismiss practitioners, but often much harder to dismiss the practice, especially if it has been around for thousands of years. Presumably they indicate some usefulness to societies, even if they are placebo effects or other processing effects on the conscious or subconscious. You can't be me, I'm taken
Materials scientists will tell you that the standard story about homeopathy makes sense to them. I've never heard that?
I've never heard that?
'Homeophobia' must not be tolerated
A major bugaboo for "homeophobes" is the concept that a solution where the solute is extremely diluted (beyond Avogadro's number) absolutely cannot, they believe, be any different from the original solvent. Hence homeopathy must be a fraud. This has been the anti-homeopathy crowd's trump card for more than 100 years. But let us turn to scientists who specialise in water's properties. Prof Martin Chaplin of London's South Bank University, a leading expert on the (molecular) structure of water, says: "Too often the final argument used against the memory of water concept is simply 'I don't believe it' ... Such unscientific rhetoric is heard from the otherwise sensible scientists, with a narrow view of the subject and without any examination or appreciation of the full body of evidence, and reflects badly on them." As it happens, there is agreement among all those who have studied liquid water that it is, in fact, the critics, who are totally wrong.
But let us turn to scientists who specialise in water's properties. Prof Martin Chaplin of London's South Bank University, a leading expert on the (molecular) structure of water, says: "Too often the final argument used against the memory of water concept is simply 'I don't believe it' ... Such unscientific rhetoric is heard from the otherwise sensible scientists, with a narrow view of the subject and without any examination or appreciation of the full body of evidence, and reflects badly on them."
As it happens, there is agreement among all those who have studied liquid water that it is, in fact, the critics, who are totally wrong.
It follows that simply proving that water does have a memory does not prove that homeopathic medicines work.
I don't get the feeling from that or reading the comment thread that there is a lot of acceptance of the point of view the water memory could explain homeopathy among material scientists.
Really? Where? Do you mean that Japanese rock formation?
I also think that while the traces of a civilisation within 20,000 years going unnoticed is entirely possible, what is implausible is traces of preceding steps going unnoticed: e.g., there would be agriculture and that would spread out, there would be population explosion and we'd notice that in the archeological as well as genetic record, there would be migration on different scales and we'd have genetic traces of that. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
