mogga wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:30:00 +0100, Steve Firth
wrote:


On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 07:57:40 +0100, Douglas de Lacey wrote:


it's a pity that those who oppose the idea here seem to have such a poor
grasp of the concept of scientific method.

It's a pity that those who believe in dowsing have no grasp at all of
scientific method and prefer to rely on anecdote and belief, absent of
evidence.

You cannot know that! What is your model of "scientific evidence"?
(Mine's popperian, if that helps).


Here's a clue, those who propose that dowsing works need to provide
evidence to support their claim. It is not a case of a "dowsing works
unless proven not to work".

If you could produce some credible evidence that dowsing works, I'll pay it
attention. If you had the slightest clue about scientific method, I'd pay
you some attention.

If you mean me, I assure you that I do. I could also add that I have
never tried dowsing, and am entirely agnostic about it. Hence my desire
from some evidence. But since (my impression is) your side comes up only
with flat denial, I'm beginning to wonder. After all, one could easily
think of models which could work.

But a blanket claim that those stating that there is no
credible basis for dowsing to work know nothing about scientific method, is
the sound of an empty vessel making a loud noise.

Who is making such claims? All I did was to ask for some evidence (which
seems to be what you too demand).


The water board use dowsing rods to confirm the location of their
pipes.

Now if you could document that, it would indeed be evidence of a sort.
But not the kind I'd like to focus on, because it depends on no model of
its efficacy, and therefore is not (as it stands) testable. Have any
dowsers offered models of how it works? Have any opponents studied the
apparently verifiable claims of success? I don't know, but no-one in
this thread or its predecessors appears ready to enlighten us.

Douglas de Lacey