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

As a fellow sceptic, I do think that NAITA has a point: a lot of what pendulums are claimed to do really hasn't been tested properly. I can't help agreeing that unless some practice has been tested and shown to work, then one can't claim it does work, let alone how it does work. I personally don't believe a word of it.

I don't, however, have a problem with this getting into the EG: it's harmless and a pleasant read. Also because, unlike the Crop Circle article, there isn't a lot of plainly contradictory evidence which undermines the author's main contention. Whether these things do what they are claimed to do, or whether it is a placebo effect is out of the scope of this discussion (and probably this site) to determine. Providing it sticks to being an account of a belief system then there's not a lot here which is very contentious. I can think of plenty of other articles I have read which deserve much less chance of an airing in the EG

Regards
FM

>> "I'm also waiting for his fellow skeptics to turn up and support his actions here or post a resignation from a community that supports the actions of it's founder!"
I'm afraid you've misunderstood a few things, zarniroop. The purpose of </.>A873038<./> isn't to support my views or give me some sort of possee, and the members may disagree with me in some things. For instance, our newest member, Pencil Queen posted here earlier, stating her belief in pendulums and dowsing. I quote: "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, the rest of her post is about the lack of scientific proof of dowsing.

Other posters, mainly spiff, silverfish and stuart have also mentioned the need for balance, but for all I know they might be happy with the entry as it stands. Jimster mentioned the need for balance, and suggested an addition, with that he's happy. I'm still not and in my opinion it's still unbalanced and deceptive.

Jimster suggested I should write an alternate entry on dowsing, and I thought I might, but I've reconsidered, a separate entry on this single subject would be unhelpfull.

What I still feel this entry lacks is either less bias throughout, or a single sentence stating that:

"Although the subject of a widespread belief supported by plenty of anecdotal evidence, all scientific tests of dowsing phenomena have shown only the results expected by chance."

And I count to _much_ more than 10 before I post.
NAITA - still a rabid skeptic

Hm, I missused the thingies again, sorry! There should be a way to force me to use 'preview'

<./>A873038</.> from zero members to eight, in as many days

NAITA, it's much easier to type A-numbers without the little slashdot tags; they parse automatically. I only use < ./ > and < /. > for named entries, like <./>ThePost</.>.

off to read this entry and then probably to join the skeptics group.

Warning, completely off topic.
Yeah, I realised that after my second post. For some reason I thought I'd get the name of the entry, like with an empty LINK tag. Since empty LINK tags only show the article number in preview I didn't catch my mistake even though I used that function on the second attempt.

mmmmm.... today 8 members and tomorrow the world... hey NAITA...

i DO read the convos on your little group's homepage... almost yiked one of the posts there...

what surprises me is that you are still back with your intolerant views and are still trying to transform this entry into a sKeptical one on dowsing...

this entry will NEVER satisfy you unless it says that dowsing doesn't exist.. YOU know it... WE know it...
and to reply to a researcher who gave you the benefit of the doubt, of course you're not trying to disprove the existence of dowsing for the simple reason that you have already made the decision to REFUSE to accept that anything not proved through "scientific" test might exist...

i think there was something about being right to question etc... fine but NAITA doesn't question, NAITA TELLS US what to believe or not...

and, to conclude, NAITA DOESN'T want to see these kind of entries being edited... one thread on his group's homepage does show what himself and one of his members do think about entries on pendulums etc...

there was a little hope that this entry MIGHT be TOLERATED by the sKeptics faction...

well it seems that NAITA needs to count more than 1000 as somehow he is back to the points he was trying to impose in the beginning...

i think what i'm saying is that i'm becoming very err sceptical about why NAITA came back to this thread...



loup

Ok, I've read the entry. I like it, actually. It's very succinct, and I feel like it tells me everything I need to know in order to go out and get started with pendulum dowsing today.

A technical point - when this entry gets picked and sent to a sub, s/he'll remove the red colouring on the headers. This is not to say that you should de-colour them yourself; just don't be surprised.

A couple of things threw me off while reading, one of which may have been mentioned before - "Pendulums are *another* Dowsers tool and they are an artform." and "*Remember*, Ley Lines are the Earths natural Energy lines..."

The 'another' in the first bit, and the 'remember' in the second sound like you're referring to something that was mentioned earlier, or that I already know, but it wasn't, and I don't. Does that make sense?

I'd change the 'another' to 'one type of', and lose the 'remember' altogether.



As far as the controversial thingy... I dunno. I didn't realize that you just held the pendulum in your hand. That means that whatever it does is just what your hand is doing, right? I mean, it just amplifies the motions of your hand, doesn't it? What if I'm extemely hung over, and my hands are shaking? Does that mean the ley lines are crowding in around me, shouting at me?... cause that's what it feels like!

I wouldn't try to change the wording throughout to please the skeptics; but I think one sentence, either at the beginning or the end, to the effect of, "the effectiveness of dowsing with pendulums and the existence of ley lines are controversial, and while skeptics are still waiting for scientific proof, many dowsers are happily finding objects and ley lines without the scientific community's endorsement.", would be enough to achieve balance, IMHO.

Naita, would something like that do it for you?


GTB

I thought I'd comment again, as there appear to have been changes made, and NAITA particularly mentioned me.

I still think that the entry is biased, although probably less so towards the believers, rather than skeptics side. I think, however, that some of this bias is fairly subtle, and St Romani needs to be careful not to bias it to far the other way.

I think it's easier if I make more specific comments, and illustrate how I think the language could be changed to avoid bias, as well as clear up some other problems along the way.

Firstly, in the sentence 'Pendulums are another Dowsers tool and they are an artform',the word another seems out of place, as you don't seem to have mentioned any other such tools.

Then we get onto the issue of bias, with the sentence '...can be used to give answers to questions or as an indicator when looking for something'. Here, I think you should emphasise that this is a belief, by saying something like 'that are thought to be able to give answer to questions...', or 'are thought to give answer to questions...'.

Similarly, 'Its flexibility will allow us to determine...', asserts that the pendulums can help find energies, whereas I think something like 'It's flexibilty is thought to allow..', should be less biased.

One main problem in the first section is that it is all one lot of text. This could be made into several paragraphs. For example, one paragraph could be an introduction, then one on the pendulum itself, its contruction and similar, and one giving a guide to some of its uses. One way of breaking down the bulk would be to give a seperate subheader to sampling, or at least a seperate paragraph.

There are a number of claims that are made here that could be softened, or removed, in the same way. The assertions that the pendulums are 'especially useful', for finding things, or 'highly efficient'. A sample of how you could reword is ths 'pendulums are commonly used to try to find ley lines, missing people or objects or missing people or objects. This is sometimes done at the location, or something remotely, using maps.'

The last sentence of this paragraph 'There have been excellent results obtained using Pendulums correctly for all these functions as well as other uses.' is probably the most contentious so far, and I think should be removed, as it doesn't really say much about pendulum dowsing itself. It is contentious, at it seems that there have been few if any successful scientific tests of pendulums.

Then on the section on reading a pendulum, the first two sentences seem rather biased, those with the word understand in. They again suggest that pendulum dowsing is a matter of fact, rather than rather contentious belief. I think a better way to introduce this might be to remove those sentences, and start something like

'pendulums are believed to have two natural rhythms, indicating positive or negative'.

Similarly, I would say the sentence 'Each of these movements is a way in which the pendulum is communicating with us with a positive or negative response', is similarly contentious, and its non-contentious part, about positive and negative responses, can be covered in a sentence similar to the one above.

There aren't as many problems with the rest of the section, it could be read as slightly biased, but it's hard to say.

The next section on holding the pendulum is probably fine, although it might be worth bringing this to the beginning of the entry, as you presumedly can't read a pendulum, without knowing how you are supposed to hold it. Another alternative is to incorporate this information into the section on reading, as these two things seem to be connected.

Then, onto lay lines. The first sentence 'Remember, Ley Lines are the Earths natural Energy lines, they are believed to be like invisible electricity cables hidden in the Earth.' seems to have had an attempt at balance, but could do with a tweak, I think. The word remember isn't really helpful, when looking for balance, and I think that mention of believe could be made at the start, so a sentence like 'Ley lines are believe to be the Earth's natural enegry lines, like invisible electricity cables hiddeen in the earth.

The rest could do with balance as well, with things like assertion that an open mind is needed or a reading 'will' be influenced, or that pendulums 'will' be drawn in the direction of ley lines. A few 'is thought's wouldn't go amiss here.

Also the last few sentences seem tangengial, mentioning other uses for pendulums. There is no problem with mentioning them(provided you keep things balanced), but perhaps a conclusion, with its own subheading would be better for that.

I agree with every change silverfish suggests here, except one.
Romani's sentence "A pendulum has two natural rhythms or movements, circular or side to side" is completely correct, it's a physical characteristic of a pendulum.

You have a point there. The controversy is really what the rhythms tell you, rather than that they exist.

naita, I have just been reading through this convo & you are the first I would like to reply to, firstly I,m going to quote on one of your statements

I,m sorry that I came across as criticising the subject and I never intended to bully neither the entry or the author, although it is,nt an excuse my tirade was caused by frustration with my inability to get my meaning across to romani and I still have,nt succeeded.

personally I dont believe that you are sorry at all, & we both know that you did indeed intend to bully me into removing this from PR, which you nearly succeeded in until I found the skeptics & the trolls page, then I understood your reasons for wanting this removed from PR & changed my mind
also I did get your meaning, but just as I would not try to force my views on others, I will not have other peoples views forced on me as you tried to do

I will not adapt my entry to suit what you think it should be, & I,m quite happy with Jimsters suggestions, so I,m afraid all your outbursts will fall on deaf ears as far as I,m concerned, after all if this gets in the EG the only people that are likely to read it will be those that are interested in doing so in the first place,

romani

I don't think it's necessary to change every fact-type statement to a belief-type statement, but surely it would be appropriate to acknowledge that the topic is controversial, and to warn potential dowsers that certain skeptics don't believe in dowsing, or in ley lines, at all (or in souls, for that matter).

St Romani, would that be agreeable, to you?


GTB

sorry but this reply will be to several people as it is getting late & I must go offline, I have to be up early

Jimster: I have made the latest changes you suggested & thankyou for your help

Loup: thankyou for pointing out a few things as you already know I too have read the convos on the skeptics page & I agree

GTB: the red is only temporary & I,m going to remove it, the "another" & "remember" are there because originally this was longer & more detailed, but I decided to simplify it before putting it into PR,
also when holding the pendulum you are supposed to keep the hand still, except when going over a map, which you still do after moving the pendulum on to another grid on the map, maybe I should clarify that also in this piece
also thankyou for your comments too

if I have missed anybody out I,m sorry but there was so many replies I could,nt possinly have replied to you all

romani

GTB do you think I really need to warn any readers that they may get replies from skeptics,
I really think that if the skeptics did that then it would be a form of bullying in the first place, or am I just reading your msg wrongly, if so I apologise.

romani

It's late for me as well, and I just lost the first version of this reply to a cut and paste error, so I'll be brief.
My apology was sincere, if you choose to disbelieve it, fine, I won't loose any sleep over it.
I didn't mean to bully you, and only suggested taking it out of Peer Review when I thought you were planning major changes. I was fully expecting to see it reappear when you had made those changes.
I have no idea what 'reasons' you're trying to ascribe to me, if you mean that I tried to suggest changes from a version I felt represented your views unchallenged in a language suggesting sound scientific backing, you're right. But to me your latest statement appear to suggest I was trying to make you retract the entry alltogether, which I weren't. Neither did I try to force my views on you, I was merely trying to convince you that my views had merit as well and deserved mention. That is the purpose of peer review. The amount of debate this entry has provoked, and not all of it posted by me, should have convinced you that this is a contentious issue.

And finally, I find it frankly offensive when you call me a liar and a bully and sprinkle the statements with smiling thumbs up faces.

Well, maybe that's not exactly what I meant. I think there should be something in there indicating that Dowsing and Ley Lines are considered superstition by a whole lot of people. That doesn't mean that these phenomena aren't real; I just think it bears mentioning.

If I didn't know better, I might easily imagine that the 'energy' of which Ley Lines consist *is* electricity, which I think you'd agree it isn't. Or, I might imagine that this energy is the same kind that I learned about in science class (the kind that = force * distance, among other things), and it isn't.

That's why I think this entry is slightly misleading without something to tell the reader that we're not talking about science here, but about a *traditional* method.



Some things are regarded as true because they have been established through the Scientific Method, however strange and counter-intuitive they may seem (Quantum mechanics, for example). Some things are regarded as true because they are rooted in tradition and generations of experience, although they seem to resist scientific proof. I think it would be a shame not to mention which kind of truth we're dealing with here.

I also think that including something about the controversial nature of dowsing would make more people happy than leaving it out would, and unless you have some reason to *not* want to include it, I think it could only improve the entry, possibly enough to silence certain critics.

At the very least, it's an "interesting fact" about dowsing that some people think it's all made up.


If I haven't talked you into it yet, then don't worry; I think you're going to get picked soon anyway. It's a well-written entry, and I learned something from it.

GTB

i must admit i like the idea of mentioning "traditional methods"...

ley lines are also part of some traditional teachings and if my memory doesn't fail me, it is also part of "geomancy" which was used by the jesuits in south america?!...

as for churches etc... being built at certain places or others [on ley lines...] they were also most of the times replacing previous worshipping sites/buildings/temples which seemed to have been there according to a specific pattern...

as there are a few scientists around [or/and believers of science] i will try to find my notes about some experiments that were made related to the ley lines considered as "energy" lines in the early 1900s... feel free to comment about them once i have got my hands on them and given you the details... i'm not too bothered if the comments are negatives on that part as i haven't experienced them and haven't witnessed them either...

as for NAITA... well what can i say?!... reading your journal COULD show that you've started your little group because you couldn't get your own way regarding romani's entry...

comments from one of your members in one specific thread on your group's homepage [one of the offensive words has been starred at last BTW...] COULD easily raise questions on why you've been so active in this PR thread...

and yes there have been lots of postings in this thread but somehow many of them were replies to YOUR comments...

as you must have noticed you seem to be the ONLY one who provokes so much reaction... advices from other sceptics do not produce so much negative replies... so don't come here saying that it's because romani's entry is too biased than there is so many postings... THAT won't wash...

but as you said you won't lose any sleep on it anyway...

talk later...

loup

"as you must have noticed you seem to be the ONLY one who provokes so much reaction... advices from other sceptics do not produce so much negative replies"

As far as I could tell NAITA was the only person who read my comment, I got no reaction from either the people in the thread or from the author, I was trying to help distinguish between what is considered scientific proof and what is anecdotal evidence (I still need to read the updated entry but I have a feeling that maybe a couple of quotes from people who've used pendulums in this way from this thread *might* be a nice addition).

I doubt that this posting will get much response either...I've used the skeptics page to blow off some steam about the lack of response to well meaning feedback on a few pr threads...if people could just reply and say "no I'm not trying to present a scientific entry, I'll put a sentence at the start of the entry to make that clear" I probably wouldn't have felt so frustrated.

Ho hum

loup thankyou for replying to naita in my absence

I think you have said more or less what I would have said anyway

btw I think if you look at the convos on here naita re-appeared after I said that I was working on another article to do with dowsing tools.

romani

pencil queen simul posts I assume

sorry if I have,nt replied to a earlier posting I must have missed it, I have,nt been able to get on here much lately due to work & digibox probs

but I will go back now & find your earlier posting

romani