I am months behind in catching up with my CS digest, but every now and then I open one at random to see what I'm missing (a lot). The debate about the Dr. Parcells site caught my eye.
>Now I've read to the end of the article. Apparently the >"determination board" is at least one method for checking these >energy levels they talk about. It seems to be a plexiglas box with a >protractor scale on the top and you're supposed to put a "witness" >sample and the test sample on top of it in the circle. > >The description isn't totally clear, but it appears you're then >supposed to dangle a silver pendulum they give you over the board and >samples and read off the angle number it swings toward to see if the >"energy" is good or not. > >Wow, sounds scientific! <NOT!> Well, sometimes science hasn't caught up with other *technologies.* But it likely will, in time. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- ?? I don't have any interest in the specific Dr. Parcells debate per se, and this is DEFINITELY not a defense of that site in any way, but as an amateur dowser, I wanted to chime in here. But first -- >So, folks, if you read something and don't understand it there are >at least *two* possible reasons why: You don't have the technical >training to understand the terminology or science involved; You >can't understand it because it's *not* understandable, either >because it's bullshit, or presented so poorly that nobody could >figure it out even if it was the gospel truth! > >Bottom line, Dr. Hazel Parcells' stuff sounds interesting enough, but >keep your hip boots handy. If they've got the kind of info that would >impress the open minded medical or scientific person it's *not* to be >found in this article. > >It all comes back to the results. I know *some* of what's out there >is actually valid. The fact that people get good results from some of >these things is compelling. It's just so damned tiring to have to >wade through the nonsense to get to it, though. You're right, Mike, some of what's out there IS valid, whether science can understand it or not. And you're also right about something else. Sometimes people are writing things up for *puiblication* on the web who have NO business putting fingers to keyboard. Not their fault, they just can't manage the English language as competently as is necessary. LOL -- and there's no one to save them from themselves. Often it's not just a matter of the language, but the quality of the thinking that goes on behind as well. I don't know if either of these is what's going on with this site, but it's worth considering. Now, about dowsing. One clue, I've found, to whether something may have some *validity* or not is how long it has survived in civilization. IOW, if it's been around a while and the best efforts of institutionalized parts of society to discredit or eliminate it hasn't succeeded in quashing it completely, it just might be worthy of a second look. Dowsing is very old, thousands of years judging from some drawings found in archeological digs. (Don't ask for details -- the history of dowsing doesn't particularly interest me, so I don't read up on it and what I have read didn't stick.) And, it works. Here in the United States, many a water well has been successfully sited by old time water witchers, usually using a witch hazel or elm branch. In the last several decades, the applications and new techniques for dowsing have skyrocketed. Too numerous to name, but it's pretty exciting to see the field blossom. As for science, well the Summer issue of The American Society of Dowsers quarterly journal had an article on that very thing. It seems there was a study financed by the German government and published in the Jounal of Scientific Exploration, which is peer-reviewed by Stanford University. The author of the ASD article describes the study: "Researchers analyzed the successes and failures of dowsers in attempting to locate water at more than 2000 sites in arid regions of Sri Lanka, Zaire, Kenya, Namibia and yemn over a 10-year period. To do this, researchers teamed geological experts with experienced dowsers and then set up a scientific study group to evaluate the results. Drill crews guided by dowsers didn't hit water every time, but their success rate was impressive. In Sri Lanka, for example, they drilled 691 holes and had an overall success rate of 96% " ' In hundreds of cases the dowsers were able to predict the depth of the water source and the yield of the well to within 10 - 20%,' says Hans-Dieter Betz, a physicist at the University of Munich, who headed the research group. " ' We carefully considered the statistics of these correlations, and they far exceeded lucky guesses,' he says." But for some REALLY good science, folks who are skeptical about such way out things as dowsing, telepathy, and certain other New Age style *technologies* ought to check out some of the findings from quantum physics. There are a number of books suitable for both lay and non-lay readers alike. "The Tao of Physics" by Fritjof Capra in just one. The hard physics sort of made MY eyes glaze over, but it would suit others to a T, I'm sure. >If, on the other hand, something defies scientific understanding, >then either it is wishful thinking *OR* denotes the *limitiations* >of science. If it is the latter, you had better at least have >reproduceable if unexplainable results to prove it's real. Well said, Mike. Except for one thing. Some things aren't satisfactorily *reproduceable* in ways that most skeptics or the *scientifically minded* among us usually insist upon. Astrology comes to mind, tho there was a chap names Gaugelin (French) who set about to scientifically disprove astrology and ended up an astrologer himself. But as I recall his studies were somewhat limited, as compared to the vast (and ever expanding) scope that is astrology. There are just too many interlaced variables, at least for me to imagine any viable scientific study that would, for once and for all, scientifically prove or disprove astrology. I also recall a fascinating article in the ASD journal some while back, about someone who was trying to find water on a mountain. He had trained himself well, and was very successful at locating water elsewhere, but kept getting false readings (and dry wells!!) on his mountain. As I recall, one problem had something to do with the magnetics of the mountain, iron deposits or something and another was something else, and there was at least a third unanticipated problem before he was successful. It wasn't that dowsing -- or the dowser -- failed, it was that there were factors beyond what he had initially expected or understood intefering. Many years ago, as a teenager, I read a marvelous little book called "The Universe and Dr. Einstein" by Lincoln Barnett. It explains in lay terms what Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Special Theory of Relativity are all about. I had by that time in my life already read some Eastern thought and other metaphysical writings, and I was awed by the book. I vividly remember closing the book and thinking to myself, "Wow. Someday the scientific and spiritual worlds will merge." Little could I have known it would happen in my lifetime. It IS happening, or at least it's begun. It's just not well known or understood by most humans on the planet. But that will change, in time. In this regard, we are at a time just about where Galileo was, or Newton, centuries ago. The firmly entrenched, institutionalized powers that be just don't *get it* and don't want to (or can't, really, to be more charitable). The realities and implications of quantum physics ARE utterly and totally paradigm-shattering, no question about it. But there they are -- and won't go away. "There's nothing more powerful than idea whose time has come." These ideas (findings) about a greatly expanded Reality than ever dreamed possible (except by mystics through the ages) will change the world to an order of magnitude that will simply dwarf all the other paradigm-shattering findings of the past put together. So, anyway, don't dismiss dowsing out of hand. Or anything else which has persisted through the ages. Skepticism is fine, but too often *skeptic* really means someone who has a closed mind on a given subject. Patricia Santhuff -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to: [email protected] -or- [email protected] with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line. To post, address your message to: [email protected] List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
