Two Men Charged Over Manchester Airport...
News5 mins ago
Questioning The Conclusions Of Science
This question arises from the discussion in R&S on the dubious practice of Water Divining. Sometimes the conclusions of science result not from positive evidence that the subject is invalid, but from absence of evidence. Whilst I know the scientifically minded will say ‘until evidence is forthcoming, I won’t consider the possibility’, but the question is do those who accept the conclusions of science ever waver and consider the possibility that evidence could exist that science has missed – or has overlooked – or is currently technologically incapable of recognising or testing?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Although it would only be anecdotal evidence and dismissed as such, its a shame this site doesn't attract more working class types.
You'd be inundated with first hand accounts(I believe)
Seeing that 'scientists' get grants to investigate why people put umbrellas up when it starts raining and other such mysteries. Why don't you apply for one to study this, Jim.
You'd be inundated with first hand accounts(I believe)
Seeing that 'scientists' get grants to investigate why people put umbrellas up when it starts raining and other such mysteries. Why don't you apply for one to study this, Jim.
naomi24
Question Author
...Mibs, Ohhhhh …. I thought that was from you. Had visions of you wandering around the garden with wire coat-hanger trembling in hand. Didn’t realise you were quoting Beso! You have to make it clear for us numbskulls, you know. ;o)
22:36 Sat 03rd Aug 2013
Despite any resemblance, that weren't no coat hanger, Naomi . . . nor will I discuss here what it was I was a dowsin' for. :o/
Question Author
...Mibs, Ohhhhh …. I thought that was from you. Had visions of you wandering around the garden with wire coat-hanger trembling in hand. Didn’t realise you were quoting Beso! You have to make it clear for us numbskulls, you know. ;o)
22:36 Sat 03rd Aug 2013
Despite any resemblance, that weren't no coat hanger, Naomi . . . nor will I discuss here what it was I was a dowsin' for. :o/
Svejk //Its a shame you're not religious Naomi. I'd put you're name forward for beatification.;)//
Well, goodness! Thank you. I’m flattered! But then again, not being religious, I’m not sure I should be. Oh dear, more confusion. ;o)
Jim, there’s an awful lot of ‘don’t knows’ and assumptions there, and yet you still call dowsing ‘paranormal’. I think the point that Matheous-2 was making – although I might be wrong – is that if quantum effects are not completely understood, why assume that they cannot have any relevance to dowsing? (I’m not sure I’ve worded that clearly – I need another cup of coffee).
Mibs, mmmm…..thinks….. bribery?
Well, goodness! Thank you. I’m flattered! But then again, not being religious, I’m not sure I should be. Oh dear, more confusion. ;o)
Jim, there’s an awful lot of ‘don’t knows’ and assumptions there, and yet you still call dowsing ‘paranormal’. I think the point that Matheous-2 was making – although I might be wrong – is that if quantum effects are not completely understood, why assume that they cannot have any relevance to dowsing? (I’m not sure I’ve worded that clearly – I need another cup of coffee).
Mibs, mmmm…..thinks….. bribery?
If dowsing has an explanation beyond the ones I have suggested earlier, then it will certainly be related, one way or another, to quantum theories. But I have provided my reasons for thinking that this is not the case.
Despite the weirdness of the quantum world, despite the fact that things are not really where they appear to be, despite the fact that the measured outcome was affect by performing the measurement, and that the observer interferes with the system -- despite all this weirdness, the mad world of the incredibly small does not defy analysis. In that sense, while it may never be fully understood (and it won't, too much is going on, but then the motions of the planets will never be fully understood either) -- while it may never be fully understood, we can at least make significant progress towards trying, using the tried-and-tested scientific method. It seems to me reasonable that the same should be true for anything else in this universe. Therefore, that scientists in the past have tested dowsing numerous times and never found anything worth pursuing is reason enough for me to think that there is little point in any further investigation. However, we're running the risk of going back to the start of this argument again. I've said my bit, you've said yours.
I'd be happy to answer questions you have about Quantum Mechanics -- each "don't know" is related to the difficulty in interpreting the maths, so ultimately the only way to be confident that what I say is true, or not, is in being able to study the maths for yourself.
Despite the weirdness of the quantum world, despite the fact that things are not really where they appear to be, despite the fact that the measured outcome was affect by performing the measurement, and that the observer interferes with the system -- despite all this weirdness, the mad world of the incredibly small does not defy analysis. In that sense, while it may never be fully understood (and it won't, too much is going on, but then the motions of the planets will never be fully understood either) -- while it may never be fully understood, we can at least make significant progress towards trying, using the tried-and-tested scientific method. It seems to me reasonable that the same should be true for anything else in this universe. Therefore, that scientists in the past have tested dowsing numerous times and never found anything worth pursuing is reason enough for me to think that there is little point in any further investigation. However, we're running the risk of going back to the start of this argument again. I've said my bit, you've said yours.
I'd be happy to answer questions you have about Quantum Mechanics -- each "don't know" is related to the difficulty in interpreting the maths, so ultimately the only way to be confident that what I say is true, or not, is in being able to study the maths for yourself.
As long as we leave it there. If I remember correctly, you were the one who first asked that we move on from this argument.
All my reasons are described, and rather a lot better, in the link I gave you earlier, but reproduce here:
http://
Everything I said beyond that is just a repetition of what this says, so I don't see much reason to copy and paste my own words, beyond what I started with:
"These claims have been around for centuries. And how incredibly useful they would be if they did work -- but not a single claimed water diviner has stood up to scientific scrutiny."
All my reasons are described, and rather a lot better, in the link I gave you earlier, but reproduce here:
http://
Everything I said beyond that is just a repetition of what this says, so I don't see much reason to copy and paste my own words, beyond what I started with:
"These claims have been around for centuries. And how incredibly useful they would be if they did work -- but not a single claimed water diviner has stood up to scientific scrutiny."
Jim, //As long as we leave it there. //
Actually, I take umbrage at that. After several days you returned here voluntarily. No one directed a question specifically at you - nevertheless you chose to contribute. As far as you are concerned, I very content to leave it there and to continue to welcome those who are interested in adding their thoughts to this thread without viewing it as a tiresome imposition.
Actually, I take umbrage at that. After several days you returned here voluntarily. No one directed a question specifically at you - nevertheless you chose to contribute. As far as you are concerned, I very content to leave it there and to continue to welcome those who are interested in adding their thoughts to this thread without viewing it as a tiresome imposition.
Svejk
//Really Jom, you honestly think that 2 rods held in opposite hands and subjected to the same stimuli would move in the same direction?//
If he was thinking about electromagnetism affecting metal wires, yes, he probably was.
//I'm not a scientist //
join the club! :op
// but then I don't have to be to see they would both turn in(ie cross) or both turn out. Or not move at all, of course. //
Okay, but we don't understand your reasoning. Basic Newtonian physics says that objects do not move (accelerate, to be more precise) unless a force acts upon them. Why and how would the sought underground object exert a force facing right on the left hand wire AND a force the opposite direction on the right hand wire?
Alternatively, what is it about the sought object that causes you to twist your wrists inwards? (whether you are conscious of this effect ot not?)
//I wouldn't normally highlight such muddled thinking //
I would highlight such a flippant attitude.
//but you appear to be using the fact that they DON'T turn in the same direction to dismiss that avenue of investigation.//
As above, most phenomena behave in a sensible and consistent manner. Hold two identical wires, apply a magnetic or electric field or a physical force in a given direction and they should both move the same way.
//Apologies if I haven't explained the above to you very well. Perhaps some of your fellow 'scientists' could make it clearer. //
Well, I tried. I only studied science, I'm not being paid to do it.
//Really Jom, you honestly think that 2 rods held in opposite hands and subjected to the same stimuli would move in the same direction?//
If he was thinking about electromagnetism affecting metal wires, yes, he probably was.
//I'm not a scientist //
join the club! :op
// but then I don't have to be to see they would both turn in(ie cross) or both turn out. Or not move at all, of course. //
Okay, but we don't understand your reasoning. Basic Newtonian physics says that objects do not move (accelerate, to be more precise) unless a force acts upon them. Why and how would the sought underground object exert a force facing right on the left hand wire AND a force the opposite direction on the right hand wire?
Alternatively, what is it about the sought object that causes you to twist your wrists inwards? (whether you are conscious of this effect ot not?)
//I wouldn't normally highlight such muddled thinking //
I would highlight such a flippant attitude.
//but you appear to be using the fact that they DON'T turn in the same direction to dismiss that avenue of investigation.//
As above, most phenomena behave in a sensible and consistent manner. Hold two identical wires, apply a magnetic or electric field or a physical force in a given direction and they should both move the same way.
//Apologies if I haven't explained the above to you very well. Perhaps some of your fellow 'scientists' could make it clearer. //
Well, I tried. I only studied science, I'm not being paid to do it.
The motion of the wires will depend on why they move in the first place. If it's anything to do with the human body, as I think either side of the argument says, then I think it would be reasonable to assume that the wires should cross -- because the left and right sides are near mirror images of each other.
Jim360 -Sorry for the delay in posting!
Thank you for your very lengthy replies and yes I do appreciate the math involved and you are quite correct too about me not being able to understand the language of equation.
I have no experiences relating to dowsing, but one or two 'other' things have happened in my lifetime which makes me completely open minded to all possibilities.....
Thank you for your very lengthy replies and yes I do appreciate the math involved and you are quite correct too about me not being able to understand the language of equation.
I have no experiences relating to dowsing, but one or two 'other' things have happened in my lifetime which makes me completely open minded to all possibilities.....
jomifl 09:13 Mon 29th Jul 2013
//Re. piezo-elecricity of bone, no surprise there, most materials are piezo-electric to some degree, even wood is. I do not see how electrical 'fields' can be generated by water bodies and I don't see how bone would react mechanically to a stationary field and if it did how the minute flexing of bone would have a significant effect on the musculature.. Even if it did it would surely make the rods move in the same direction and not cross, To me it doesn't even seem to be a starter.//
So, he appears to be talking about (hypothetical) electrical fields...
I guessed at "electromagnetic fields" - basically the same thing
He uses the words "Even if it did", to express his disbelief...
He goes on to say "it would surely make the rods move in the same direction and not cross"
...which is what I was reiterating but you either failed to understand the whole "Field-force-current" concept or you couldn't be bothered to read that far into my post.
//Re. piezo-elecricity of bone, no surprise there, most materials are piezo-electric to some degree, even wood is. I do not see how electrical 'fields' can be generated by water bodies and I don't see how bone would react mechanically to a stationary field and if it did how the minute flexing of bone would have a significant effect on the musculature.. Even if it did it would surely make the rods move in the same direction and not cross, To me it doesn't even seem to be a starter.//
So, he appears to be talking about (hypothetical) electrical fields...
I guessed at "electromagnetic fields" - basically the same thing
He uses the words "Even if it did", to express his disbelief...
He goes on to say "it would surely make the rods move in the same direction and not cross"
...which is what I was reiterating but you either failed to understand the whole "Field-force-current" concept or you couldn't be bothered to read that far into my post.
Sigh,I wouldn't normally engage an unarmed man in a battle of wits, however;
Jomilfi was talking about a theory that involved bone & muscle. He then,wrongly, claimed the 'rods' would not cross but point in the same direction.
It would need an external force to 'pull' or 'push' the rods in the same direction.
You, originally,appear to have made the same error.
So your diatribe against me was based on your own error.
When you're in a hole, stop digging. Your folly is there for all to view.
Jomilfi was talking about a theory that involved bone & muscle. He then,wrongly, claimed the 'rods' would not cross but point in the same direction.
It would need an external force to 'pull' or 'push' the rods in the same direction.
You, originally,appear to have made the same error.
So your diatribe against me was based on your own error.
When you're in a hole, stop digging. Your folly is there for all to view.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.