h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

then i will apologise for the gender mistake too...

i would be interested to know how you can explain that i was able to find with the use of my pendulum information that i genuinely didn't know about the people i experimented on...

once again as a tool the pendulum helped me to find these information... where were they in the first place is anyone's guess...

and yes i would have been surprised that you would have agreed about the telepathy bit...
but once again have a look at the bbc science site...

i will have another look tonight myself and bring some links if needed tho' these links/arguments/points etc should be only needed after romani's entry is edited...

romani's entry could be edited without the offensive "beliefs" part [is a genuine experience a belief?! me thinks not somehow] but something around "according to witnesses" according to those who practice dowsing" "experienced by" etc could do the trick...

just a thought of course...



loup

I don't need to explain it, since I don't believe it. But without knowing anything about the kind of information, or the setting, or the accuracy, my bet would be guesswork.
If you would supply the link I would have a look at the BBC-site... oh well, I guess I can attempt a search.

i thought i already explained that the information i got when i used the pendulum were details which i DIDN'T KNOW... i didn't EVEN expect these results as at the time i was just being curious...

if it was guesswork then i should go on some of the TV games shows... [why didn't i think of that before?!...]

as for other links i did say that i will look for them tonight if needed...

one question tho': why would people who believe dowsing to be "bogus" bother reading an entry on pendulum dowsing?!...

my concern also [even so i understand the idea about the edited guide... to a point] is that too much changes including "beliefs" and "maybe" would NOT make an objective entry at all but rather an entry that would ONLY please the sceptics and would certainly not be so informative...

i also wonder if science would have progressed so much [and still progressing to the point of questioning previous scientific findings/theories...] if more sceptics had had a say into new scientific researchs etc...

what i mean is that science is not accurate 100%... todays scientific theories, test results etc will be challenged eventually with newer scientific theories, test results etc... better equipment, new data are already contributing towards these changes...

what was deemed to be scientifically impossible years ago is now questioned by scientists themselves...

i won't go too much into examples but we just have to look into what was scientifically found impossible about space before and what's
scientifically found possible now...

the fact that something or a phenomenom cannot be scientifically explained today doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or/and that it won't be scientifically explained one day...

and to conclude EVEN scientists disagree among themselves about the reality or not of certain phenomena (?)... so no-one can actually say that science has proved that dowsing's results are "bogus" etc... it's only ACCORDING to some factions in the scientific world... NOT all of them...

there are grey areas even when it comes to science...

i do hope that a sastifactory solution will be found for BOTH sides...

i met a lot of "non-believers" who are interested in finding out info about "what's out there" and it can lead to great discussions...



loup

"so no-one can actually say that science has proved that dowsing's results are "bogus" etc"

..and no one ever will. It is an undeniable fact of logic that you can never prove a negative.

Its up to the proponents to prove that it does work, not for science to prove that it doesn’t work.

Stuart

I would just like to say a big thank you to all those of you who have confidence in me

I would also like to say re: the existence of ley lines, they do in fact exist if they did not there would,nt have been any maps made of them.......& also another point that I think needs a mention is churches are in fact built on top of ley lines, & the search for ley lines as been made before choosing a site to build churches on in the 1st instance

romani

Just briefly, on maps and existence...

I have seen a map of Middle Earth, and i'm not convinced that it exists...

but don't worry, Romani, i still think you'll make it with this piece,

thankyou spiff

no the middle earth map is,nt the same thing, unfortunately there has only been 2 maps made of ley lines, I know this because they have been recorded but getting hold of them is another matter entirely ive been trying for some time now, but at the end of the day they dont really matter because it is quite easy to find them using dowsing anyway......that is how they were made in the 1st place & from what ive been able to find out so far the maps are being held by the church of england......which probably explains why i cant get hold of them

romani

it sure will make a good debate once this entry is edited...

as for the bit about science in my previous post i was refering it AS A BODY... NOT all the scientists have come to the same conclusions when it comes to certain phenomena... so NO-ONE can say that science [as a body] has proved that dowsing's results are "bogus"...

do i have to prove that what i experienced exist?!... interesting thought... the results were there... i could NOT have known the information i found about the people i experimented on... either i'm very good at guessing [where do i apply for the next TV game show?!] or "something else" happened...



loup

Hmf, stupid bandage falls off when I chew, b*gg*r. Now, where was I.

I haven't been able to find the pages in BBC's science section that you meationed loup, could you post links?

And to repeat Spiff's comment on maps with a scientific twist. In 1877 Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli first spotted the canals on Mars. For several years this was thought to be an amazing discovery and theories on their origin and use very many, but then it was discovered that it was all an optical illusion and it ended up in the dustbin of science.

Science isn't perfect, but its methods have been created to compensate for that by requiring testing, retesting, evaluation and reevaluation. Based on a theory one can conduct tests, which will either support (not prove) the theory, or refute it. One such theory is that humans can in some way discover hidden objects, energies or information through the use of pendulums or dowsing rods. As long as all available test results contradict this theory I don't see it as a problem _believing_ it to be invalid. If your personal experience supports the theory, you are of course sensible in believing it to be true. But I would suggest putting it to the test in a scientifically approvable manner, and see if it still works when you have eliminated all other possible ways to obtain success.

Me, I'll go on beliving it to be wishfull thinking until someone proves me wrong.

Hmf, I posted an earlier version due to a cut and paste foul up. I left out these two paragraphs:

Loup, of course you don't have to prove that what you experinced exist, unless you want to present it as scientific proof of the phenomenon of pendulum dowsing. And you wouldn't have to try for a game show, which probably wouldn't let you use the pendulum, you could simply take the Randi Challenge.

Nowadays anyone can look through a telescope and see that Mars does not have those lines, but Ley Lines are supposed to be invisble energies, so how can one claim they don't exist? Well, one doesn't have to. As Stuart said, it's up to the proponents of a theory to prove it, not for the opponents to disprove it, which sometimes cannot be done since you can't prove a negative. There _does_ _not_ _exist_ _proof_ of the existence of Ley Lines. Ley Line maps aren't proof, they're the description of the theory.

loup hiya

then maybe we should both be on the same tv show

I must admit when I 1st started experimenting in all forms of dowsing I was very sceptical, so in a way I can understand the sceptics

but once id got going with it I was also equally amazed at the results I also found out things that I did,nt know anything about

the proof is in eating the pudding as they say

romani

OK just so you know...I'm a scientist, and a sceptic...but I do beleive there is some truth behind the usefulness of pendulums/dowsing...however until we understand *how* it works it will not be accepted as scientific fact...in other words until we can say "It involves x component of earths magnetic field, combined with y component of local geological features, combined with z component of the electro-magnetic influence of the user's brainwaves" it will not be accepted as fact.

For things to be proven scientifically means they have to be measurable (which is hard to do with a pendulum/dowsing rods) repeatable (regardless of who is doing it/whats on their mind) explainable (we understand whats happening) and provable (in other words it can be used to find lost things). At the moment it has been proven *anecdotally* (this would be a great word to use in the entry instead of beleivers/practitioners etc etc) but it isn't measurable or repeatable and all explainations are flawed because of this.

A863309 has been recommended and includes a reference to ley lines...however it includes the phrase "some people beleive" (second paragraph second sentence I think)

Re: ley line maps... a map showing ley lines constructed by dowsing would be as likely to reflect the person making the map as physical features...the arguement against ley lines is that the only evidence *for* their existance is through dowsing, while some of the evidence for dowsing is that it can be used to measure ley lines....this arguement can go around and around in circles, to *prove* the existance of ley lines would involve measuring their existance with something quantifiable (ie flux's in the earth magnetic feild could be recrded at this point or something similar...either the cause for ley lines involves measuring something we can't measure yet or it is too small a flux to be measured by current equipment (which throws doubt on the ability of a person to sense it)).

I'd just like to point out that what I've said so far refers to the discussion in this thread and not to the entry, I'll post again with reference to the entry.

PQ (Geologist with a quartz pendant/part time pendulum)

It seems to me that we are having an unnecessary debate about the 'scientifically proven or not' aspect of the subject when all that is required is careful wording to produce a fine entry on an interesting subject.

This places the responsibility on you, Romani, to make sure that you present the subject not with a view to 'convincing' the public that this works, but simply as a presentation of a practice that some people use to find things and get replies to questions. Indeed, you may want openly to state that some people find the whole idea ludicrous - that doesn't actually make it ludicrous.

Balance, as you would imagine in an entry on pendulums, is the key to all this.

btw, am i right in thinking that this is particularly widely used in predicting whether an unborn child is a boy or a girl? I don't know where i got that idea... but i did.

spiff yes I agree it does lay with me

this entry was not written with a view of trying to convince people that it works......that would be very foolish of me...as the only way for people to see if it works or not with them is by experimenting with it in the 1st place.

it was merely intended as a guide as to how to make a pendulum & how to use it & understand its workings.....but I also agree there is a lot of work yet to be done

oh & the testing for a unborn childs sex as I understand it yes it is supposed to be able to predict the sex......but that is 1 thing ive not as yet tried to see if it works.....so I would,nt really like to mention that in my article

romani

this is the 1st time ive been able 2 access my email 2 get on here since my last msg

i am at the moment waiting 4 an engineer 2 arrive but if they put me a new digibox in that will mean that i wont be able 2 get in here again till my email addy as been sorted.....which usually takes another few days so i will be in touch again asap

romani

Hi Romani,

I've just read through the backlog in this discussion and got very concerned you were going to feel bullied out of Peer Review here - glad to see a lot of positive feedback and that you stuck to your guns .

I've been thinking of a few things which might help appease the cynics and possibly a few structural changes to make the entry a little tighter. Hope this doesn't overwhelm you at all, I'm just posting it all at once so it's easier for you to read through and accept / dismiss as you see fit

Intro - it might help if you explain where you're coming from. Perhaps because he's a cynic, NAITA is criticising the *subject* of the entry, whereas the *belief* in pendulum dowsing does exist, and is factual, so this entirely qualifies for the Edited Guide. But just to explain your background, might I suggest an explanatory intro, something like:

'Throughout history, humanity has experimented with many different ways to explain the present and foretell the future. Once such method is dowsing - using implements to find information or to locate sources of water or other materials.'

... then go straight in with your first line.

Your phrase 'can be used to give definate answers' might be a bit misleading as the answers can be fairly vague or interpretive in this kind of practice - I'd suggest dropping the 'definite' (note the spelling, by the way ).

I'd also suggest putting everything before 'How to Read A Pendulum' into one or two paragraphs, as it reads a little bit 'bitty' at the mo. It might flow better if condensed. Likewise the two lines after that header would be better brought together. And the two lines after 'How to Hold A Pendulum' should be in one para, and the last line of the entry should be brought up to conclude the preceding para.

I think on the whole this makes for a fascinating first entry to Peer Review, and I look forward to reading more from you. All the best,

Jimster

Very well put jimster!

Wow support for belief and almost a policy statement for the guide! Cool!

Makes me happy to know that the italics support the little guys!

Z

I really don`t think that NAITA is trying to `disprove` the existance of ESP or anything else esoteric.

Quite the opposite!

Ley Lines exist!
Unfortunately, due to modern life and the reliance on computers etc, these `gut instincts` have been swept aside by a lot of people.

There are many, many instances of `proof` of ley lines. As has been stated before... churches, cathedrals etc... but what about Stonehenge, Glastonbury? What about the sacred buildings of the Incas, Aztecs, Mayans etc that have all been built in `lines`?

I really don`t think that anything will ever be proven to everyones satisfaction, but NAITA is right to question! If we don`t question, how else are we to know the truth?!

Romani is just trying to provide us with a little extra information and that can only be good.

I have questioned a lot of things and still do.... the Nazca Plains still puzzle me and whats wrong with that! How could these ancient peoples `draw` huge pictures on the ground that only make sense when viewed from the air?!

The list is endless and like I`ve said before, answers are few and far between.

Does that mean that all the people in the world who believe in a Higher Being are wrong?! Of course NOT! We cannot PROVE the existance but that does not mean that it isn`t real.
All it means is that, scientifically, we cannot PROVE it! SO WHAT!

Even SCIENCE in its beginning stages is subject to scepticism!!

Right... I`ve talked way too much so I`m going now!!

Good Luck Romani!

Jane

I think that Jimster's comments are extremely helpful. Go for it Romani!

Let us know when you've made the changes.

Small typo, BTW - definate > definite.

Jane, you are quite right I wasn't trying to disprove any paranormal phenomena, since that isn't possible. What I wanted to get across is that none of them have been proven to exist in scientific terms, and that I, personally, don't _believe_ they exist.
Ley lines is one such phenomenon, the bright idea of one individual who saw that he could draw straight lines between several sites he considered to be of importance and that they would cross other sites. Unfortunately this isn't proof that this is due to some mysterious forces that were used to place these constructions, and no serious test has supported the theory.
And the Nazca plains aren't all that mysterious, I have, personally, made large pictures that only made sense when viewed from above, just to please me. It's a fairly short leap of the imagination to come to the conclusion that someone believing in all powerful deities would do something similar to please those beeings.
Its not foolish to believe there are things out there that we don't understand, but it is, in my personal opinion, unwise to ignore available evidence that support the opposite of ones beliefs.