At 05:04 PM 11/7/2009, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
Regarding Robert Park's recent newsletter:
<http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/>http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/
I was amused by Park's conclusion concerning Item #2 "MEMORY: WHY IS
IT NECESSARY TO KEEP DEBUNKING THIS STUFF?". Park is referring to: dowsing:
In his newsletter Park sez:
"Is there no memory? Where I grew up in Texas no one would think of
digging a well until the local dowser using a willow fork approved
the spot. Since then, dowsing for water has been debunked over and
over, most thoroughly by James Randi. But dowsing is now used for
everything. Last year, the power company needed to find a buried
power cable on our road. I watched the lineman reach under the seat
of his truck, pull out a stiff wire bent in the shape of a fork, and
start dousing for the cable. If it works for everything, there is no
physical cause and it's not science."
* * *
What kind of science? Park seems to imagine that a field in which he
has some expertise has generated a conclusive "theory of everything,"
that, for example, in this case, restricts what the human mind might
be able to do. Can people sense buried objects? What clues might be
observed and followed by a person that might increase probability of
success? What are the limits of perception? Does Park really imagine
that he knows these things?
He's assuming some "physical cause" must be behind dowsing, but
obviously dowsing is a complex interaction between a person and
something the person is holding. If the dowsing rod was on a cart and
the cart was pushed along, with a very smooth suspension, would the
rod bounce around from the "energy" of the buried object?
I don't think so! And I don't think any dowser would think so!
The dowsing rod is a kind of indicator used by the process of the
person. It enables the person to externalize their intuition, and I
understand "intuition" as being the result of much process going on
outside consciousness, what goes on in the mind is far more complex
and far deeper than what we are consciously aware of, consciousness
is only a small sliver of the activity.
And then there are possibilities that involve weird physics. That's
not what I'm talking about!
The question Park doesn't seem to answer is whether the lineman
actually found the buried cable, and by what procedure did he locate
the cable by? (Presumably, the lineman eventually found what he was
looking for.)
Park doesn't care, because he will explain it away, it's irrelevant,
"anecdotal." How, exactly, was dowsing "debunked?" Double-blind
experiment? But ... if dowsing works, it could be possible to deceive
it by carefully concealing all the clues, by setting up an artificial
condition to test if the person is "actually" detecting the water or
whatever. A better test, probably, would be to compare the success at
finding objects of people who believe in and use dowsing and people
who don't. You'd need to gain the cooperation of the dowsers, and
you'd observe the procedures of well-drilling (assuming it's water
being sought). Over a large number of trials, do dowsers do better
than non-dowsers? And what would that prove? After all, what's the
control? What if the non-dowsers were using their own personal
equivalent, a hunch that they should drill here rather than there?
Okay, so you could compare against random drilling in a defined area.
Is dowsing better than random drilling? And that would get closer to
the real question. But this would be a very difficult test to
perform, and very expensive, probably. Has it been done? Park seems
to believe that dowsing has been conclusively debunked. How? I'd love
to read the peer-reviewed report.
There was a beautiful test that was done that did seriously call into
question the validity of astrology. I should look it up. A
professional society of astrologers agreed to participate; they
believed that the test would demonstrate validity. 300 natal charts
were prepared, and the 300 persons took a personality test, I think
it was the California Inventory, as I recall the name. Each
astrologer was given 3 charts to compare, and the three corresponding
test results, and there were a hundred trials by members of the
association. They did no better than chance.
Because human beings are really good pattern detectors (we will
detect patterns even where none exist, we are so programmed to look
for them), I'd expect that if natal charts correlated with
personality, they'd have succeeded in doing better than chance. You
could argue that the personality profile doesn't correlate with
personality, but not only is that ridiculous (there would have to be
almost no correlation), but the astrologers accepted that test and
considered it valid.
There are explanations that would still leave room for some kind of
astrology to be valid, and, in fact, for there to be no effect at all
from sun sign would mean that there was no effect from season of
birth.... assuming birth at the same latitude.... there is also
Indian astrology, which uses the actual star positions, not the
artificial Zodiac fixed long ago, no longer even close due to
precession. But with that study, my own opinion became that not only
is it not worth investigating further, but astrology could be
positively harmful, by presenting people with false information about
their supposed "tendencies."
On the other hand, real astrologers interact with the people they
serve, and thus intuition comes into play. That's not testable by the
kind of study I described. The reality may be much better than the
theory. Even if the stars have no influence!
I find myself wondering: Didn't the lineman have a standard issue
metal detector that he could have used? Surely such equipment would
be standard issue for all linemen who must determine the location
of buried cable. I got the impression that this particular lineman
seemed to have preferred the use of his favorite "dowsing" tool
instead of using a standard issue metal detector. I find it curious
that Park seemed to have sidestepped what appeared to have been the
lineman's preference to use a dowsing tool. Instead, Park evokes
the "...it's not science" mantra... as if that explains everything!
It's narrow-minded and parochial. Like his opinions in certain other fields.
Actually the entire sentence was: "If it [dowsing] works for
everything, there is no physical cause and it's not science." This
is a far more revealing sentence for what it implies indirectly.
Considering the recent article on the "nocebo" effect (complements
of Harry Veeder), as well as the famous placebo effect ...and I
think we are getting closer to the crux of Park's nightmare:
Occasionally, we are presented with "phenomenon" that seems to have
no apparent physical explanation.
Yeah. Scary, eh? If we don't understand everything, we can't control
it! Park imagines that he has more right to declare what's real than
others. The term is "arrogance."
Maybe dowsing works... maybe it doesn't. I really don't know.
I don't either. Certainly I've read lots of reports of people who
swear by it, but what does that prove? I'd be interested in the study
that Park, if I think the best of his comment, is relying upon. Or is
"science" just what Park thinks, if he thinks it, it's "scientific,"
and if someone else thinks it, it isn't? Unless, of course, the other
person agrees with Park.
Meanwhile, we do know that the placebo effect occasionally works
with no apparent "scientific" explanation. The fact that Park
lamented, "...dowsing is now used for everything." seems so baffling
to me that such a science-fearing man should feel so bothered having
to make such an admission. It's as if the act of "dowsing" for a
buried cable was such galling affront to the way Park believes the
universe is constructed that his personal interpretation of
"science" was in danger of being contaminated, or at least
disproven... maybe by just a teeny tiny little bit. What a house of
cards that might reveal!
I wonder... does Science really need self-appointed spokes person
constantly defending its honor?
Nope. Now, if someone claims that dowsing is "scientific," but
without following the scientific method, I'd be right there
criticizing the abuse of the term "science." People will make up
scientific-sounding explanations for things, and I consider it
offensive if something is being sold! Look up tachyon beads, great
example. Or the emdrive.....
