On Sat, 7 Nov 2009, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/
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.
What Park doesn't get is that "debunking" is actually pseudoscience
masquerading as science.
As a scientist investigating a phenomenon you're expected to fight tooth
and nail against personal bias. You're supposed to eliminate emotional
investment in the outcome, reduce personal involvement, maintain your
emotional distance. Whenever you can't do this, whenever one particular
outcome would go very well (or very badly) for you, then you're supposed
to admit to conflict of interest. In that case, the honest scientists
entirely remove themselves from the proceedings.
In "debunkery," all of the above is lacking.
If a debunker claims or even implies to have "scientific" behavior, then
their actions are the very definition of pseudoscience: an attempt to
increase their credibility by adopting a scientific facade, but without
adopting core scientific principles.
Debunkery perhaps has its place when well-known scams are involved. If
someone is selling deeds to the Brooklyn Bridge, or selling maps to lost
gold mines ...then send in the debunkers. As long as they avoid putting
on scientific airs, their actions remain honorable. They're warriors who
defend naive victims from the Bad Guys. Make no mistake, there are plenty
of Bad Guys out there.
But again, (and regardless of any degrees they might hold,) debunkers are
'the police,' and are not in any way scientists. A debunker operates
under the assumption that their target is a dishonest criminal type, or at
best a deluded person, both of whom will cause harm, both of whom must be
stopped. Such behavior in a scientist would constitute major prejudice
and hopeless emotional bias. If the debunker turned out to be wrong, then
their actions become the persecution of an innocent target. For this
reason a debunker has *enormous* personal investment in the outcome: if
their victim turns out to be innocent, then the debunker is transformed
from an honorable Warrior to an evil criminal who attacks others based on
prejudice and ignorance.
If an odd phenomenon needs investigation, then science is the way to go.
But if debunkers claim to be "investigating" an odd phenomenon, yet
they're secretly certain that the phenomenon isn't real ...then they're
not just debunkers. They're pseudoscientists.
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."
* * *
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.) 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!
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.
Maybe dowsing works... maybe it doesn't. I really don't know. 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?
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
(((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA 206-762-3818 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
