A Conversation for Pendulum Dowsing

Dingo's Kidneys

Post 1

NAITA (Join ViTAL - A1014625)

... or DKs as they are also known, can be quite useful, at least to Dingos. smiley - winkeye

-NAITA smiley - devil non-believer (H2G2 Skeptics A873038)


Dingo's Kidneys

Post 2

MaW

smiley - laugh

Very true.


Dingo's Kidneys

Post 3

JD

smiley - winkeye I think the problem I have is more with the way in which ideas like dowsing are presented, and not so much in whether these concepts are actually "real" or if they "work" or not. Science in and of itself cannot deny that such things do not "work" as professed, but by the same token science should not be abused such that it appears to lend some credibility to such things simply by hijacking its language and terms. For example, the way the author developed a hypothesis (even though used as an example) would be deplorable in actual science (what, one test? Why not two? ten? a thousand?). I use the term hijacked, but perhaps a better word is "redefined." I can't help but wonder if the terms "theory" and "energy" are borrowed since they have a pedigree to them that implies some time-honored tradition or other that apparently lends an "unquestionability" about it, no matter how often it is stated that "people can have their own opinion." It's obvious what is meant by "energy" in the article has little to do with what the word actually means in physics, but it is written stylistically to seem to carry the same sort of meaning (as opposed to my personal energy level, which simply means "vim and vigor" or the "vitality").

So, to the author(s) if reading, as much as I have already digressed here about what I think of the pseudoscientific expressions of this article, I think it's time for me to shut up. It is a nice article and my objections are about the style used (common to a lot of what is called "pseudoscience") and not necessarily whether the actual practice is harmful or "bad" in general (in the case of dowsing anyway). NAITA has written an excellent article about the Scientific Method (to which I had some small input) that will express what the appropriate meanings of such scientific terms (ab)used in this article really are, so I am certain that proponents of "alternative" science will have their day in court once it's edited.

smiley - 2cents

- JD ("Finding science incomprehensible doesn't make everything incomprehensible scientific")


Dingo's Kidneys

Post 4

JD

smiley - grr In my second sentence, I meant to say "science ... cannot show that such things do not 'work'", not "deny that they work."

I need a full-time editor.

- JD


Dingo's Kidneys

Post 5

St Romani Angel Guardian of Crystals. Minister of Coffee now on the decaff!!

well I,ve just read your comments & would just like to say this article as been altered quite a lot from what I originally wrote & also a lot of the alterations have come about in an effort to please the skeptics on h2 in the 1st place

also it has then been altered even more in the editorial process

romanismiley - angel


Dingo's Kidneys

Post 6

NAITA (Join ViTAL - A1014625)

And I'd have prefered if it was altered even more. But I'm not planning on ranting about that here. smiley - smiley


Dingo's Kidneys

Post 7

St Romani Angel Guardian of Crystals. Minister of Coffee now on the decaff!!

well im pleased that your not planning any rantings on here after all at the end of the day every 1 is entitled to their own opinions & views are,nt they

besides I think you did more than enough ranting on the PR thread

romanismiley - angel


Dingo's Kidneys

Post 8

NAITA (Join ViTAL - A1014625)

Nope.


Dingo's Kidneys

Post 9

St Romani Angel Guardian of Crystals. Minister of Coffee now on the decaff!!

nope to what exactly ???

romanismiley - angel


Dingo's Kidneys

Post 10

six7s

Hi Romani

I think the smiley - angel after your name is a little incongruous with a statement such as << besides I think you did more than enough ranting on the PR thread >>

Naita's comments were, as far as I understand, in keeping with the aims of PR - he (and others, myself included) made suggestions that would have made your entry more in keeping with the style of the edited guide, ie balanced, objective and, perhaps most importantly, verifiable

Please do not confuse scepticism with bigotry


Dingo's Kidneys

Post 11

St Romani Angel Guardian of Crystals. Minister of Coffee now on the decaff!!

hi six7s

I actually found the comments & advice from yourself & others quite helpful & I have no complaints there.

but I think if you actually follow the PR thread right from the beginning that you will see naita did seem to (& not just in my view) be a bit OTT in trying to make me lose my cool & also only started the skeptics group after I had submitted my entry in a bid to stop it & or any other entries like it from getting into the edited guide.

romanismiley - angel


Dingo's Kidneys

Post 12

NAITA (Join ViTAL - A1014625)

Let me just point out a few things. Yes, I did have one post where I wasn't as polite as I should have been. I later apologised for this, and you chose to ignore that apology, saying it was insincere and that I had intended to be mean all along. I don't like being called a liar, so I dropped completely out of the peer review thread after that.

I started the skeptics group as a result of the unpleasant experience of trying to peer review this entry. Not to 'combat' this entry, but to find likeminded people to discuss stuff with. People who know science from pseudoscience, and faith from, for lack of a better term, 'facts'.

As I said, I'm not going to discuss this entry with you, because we have irreconcilable world views. But I _tried_ to inform you of those views calmly, and _almost_ succeeded (I know, almost just isn't good enough. smiley - blush), you on the other hand chose to ignore _all_ of my suggestions _and_ refuse my apology for being rude.

And when you say I ranted, let me tell you, you've never seen me rant. smiley - devil


Dingo's Kidneys

Post 13

St Romani Angel Guardian of Crystals. Minister of Coffee now on the decaff!!

well after reading the comments on your skeptics page & your article on trolling for newbies i think you can hardly blame me for thinkin you were bein insincere now can you ?

but like you said this is 1 particular subject where we will never agree so maybe it is best to just drop it before it gets out of hand smiley - ok

besides ive got too many RL problems at the mo to contend with without any more elsewhere

romanismiley - angel


Key: Complain about this post