It frustrates me too. But I don't think as badly about those scientists who ignore fortean subjects as many do. It seems to me the salient quality of fortean phenomena is their general infrequency, which condemns them to expression beyond the experiencer as anecdotes, prohibits their replication in the laboratory and makes it easy to dismiss their existence at all. Scientists need funding for experiments, and as much as I'd like to get the lowdown on poltergeist phenomena, I'll wait for someone else to invest in research. There's no real excuse for utterly dismissing phenomena without even bothering to examine the extent and consistent nature of experiences, nor looking at that evidence purely as an exercise in explaining it away.It's always been a disappointment to me that the scientific community basically refuse to investigate things that have been labelled 'Fortean' or 'supernatural'. It seems to me that some of them , if rigorously investigated, might come up with new scientific discoveries that could expand our abilities.
It frustrates me too. But I don't think as badly about those scientists who ignore fortean subjects as many do. It seems to me the salient quality of fortean phenomena is their general infrequency, which condemns them to expression beyond the experiencer as anecdotes, prohibits their replication in the laboratory and makes it easy to dismiss their existence at all. Scientists need funding for experiments, and as much as I'd like to get the lowdown on poltergeist phenomena, I'll wait for someone else to invest in research. There's no real excuse for utterly dismissing phenomena without even bothering to examine the extent and consistent nature of experiences, nor looking at that evidence purely as an exercise in explaining it away.
It frustrates me too. But I don't think as badly about those scientists who ignore fortean subjects as many do. It seems to me the salient quality of fortean phenomena is their general infrequency, which condemns them to expression beyond the experiencer as anecdotes, prohibits their replication in the laboratory and makes it easy to dismiss their existence at all. ...
I had a science teacher who was an advocate of dowsing. Mind you, he was a renowned nutter. But a good teacher.It's why I put dowsing at the head of the list. It is a relatively common thing and many country folk just accept it as a fact of life. Apparently Einstein (of all people) thought it should be investigated.
I can't help but think of these words being said in Miranda's voice when I look at your avatar, @min_bannister !The Fairy Coffins
The Flannan Island Mystery
The Monster of Glamis
Siberian Cauldrons
Daedalis sea serpent
I can't help but think of these words being said in Miranda's voice when I look at your avatar, @min_bannister !
That's the trouble exactly. Mainstream archeology, anthropology, geology, historians, paleontology, etc., etc. are dismissive of ideas and even evidences that don't fit into their nice snug theories and conclusions. God help them they might have to re-wright the text books. Plus it's blow to their prestige, we don't want to damage their pride. A scientist can be drummed out his or hers field and have their futures ruined for sticking behind unpopular finding.I had a science teacher who was an advocate of dowsing. Mind you, he was a renowned nutter. But a good teacher.
I may be remembering incorrectly, but I'm sure Chris French did an experiment in dowsing which appeared on one of Richard Dawkins' programmes. The experiment involved putting planks over containers, some of which contained water, and getting dowsers to walk over them trying to dowse out the water filled containers. I can't say what the entire methodology involved from my memory of that particular programme, but no mention was made of following those dowsers in the usual process of their work to establish whether there was a genuine phenomenon to be studied or how best to replicate those circumstances in laboratory conditions. He just set up an experiment that didn't resemble the situation in which dowsers operate and then condescendingly (as is his way) told us all why we falsely believe things that haven't been scientifically proven. As though he'd somehow disproven dowsing and proven his conclusion. Neither of which he'd achieved. But I don't suppose scientific method is particularly important when you're already convinced what the outcome of the experiment will be.
Apropos of not much, it seems to me that kinesiology has something in common with dowsing - I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that they draw on the same bodily response, whatever it actually is. If burlesque is really just stripping with A levels, is kinesiology dowsing with A-levels?
which shows the reaction of the human nervous system to certain factors which are unknown to us at this time."
I posted something similar on this MB (probably several years ago on a thread with Dowsing in the title), suggesting that forked twigs, bent rods, pendulums, etc, act as amplifiers for minute and unconscious bodily reactions when the dowser gets close to the object of interest.That is it in a nutshell Cochise - all our divination really is, is using something as an indicator to what the body, or mind is picking up.
I posted something similar on this MB (probably several years ago on a thread with Dowsing in the title), suggesting that forked twigs, bent rods, pendulums, etc, act as amplifiers for minute and unconscious bodily reactions when the dowser gets close to the object of interest.
My Mum can tell when rain is about to fall. She usually complains of pains in her legs, and then mutters 'rain's on the way'.The Old People in Australia have the 'bush telegraph' where a twitch of a muscle or an ache tells them that they need to get in contact with that specific person - and nine times out of ten, they are right.
My Mum can tell when rain is about to fall. She usually complains of pains in her legs, and then mutters 'rain's on the way'.
She's mostly been right too.