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

NAITA... due to everyday pressures, I found that I couldn`t get back into our conversation properly in the `Pendulums` thread.

Hence the reason that I have posted a new one here.

Hopefully, I may be able to raise a couple of points that I didnt want to in the Pendulums thread.

I`m going to try to be as quick as I can but I DO tend to ramble when on these kinds of subjects! If this happens, just ignore me.

A couple of points!

The Nazca Plains.
If, as I was, you were `totally` skeptical about this... my question would be WHY did you experiment with large drawings of your own?!

Ley Lines.
I too have had my doubts, but these have prooved to be false.

I don`t like to talk too much about these things in a public forum, but what I will say is that I think you need to do more `testing` of your own.

I had to do this in order to proove to MYSELF the validity of certain things.

I, personally, have never set foot on the moon but mankind tells me that we`ve been there.

I cannot say for certain that the world is round because I have never walked it, but I believe it! WHY!

The `thud` that happens when Concorde flies. I am told that this is because of the sound barrier and I believe it!

Why do I believe it? Because. it appears to make sense according to the knowledge I possess at the time.

I could go on but I won`t!

I figure thats enough of my preaching for one night.

Take care
Kushti Bok

Jane

No appologies needed.

Regarding the Nazca plains I didn't 'experiment' with large figures. I just created them. I grew up on a farm lying on a hillside by a lake. When the lake froze over and the ice was covered in snow. I could trample patterns, letters or other types, really huge, and admire them from our house. A few neighbours could probably see them as well, but other farms would be too far away. But strictly speaking this is irrelevant and I wish I could start over again with my contribution to the peer review on "pendulum dowsing" since I managed to alienate everyone there who weren't skeptics already.

But back to the plains. I first learned about them when reading one of Erich von Däniken's books. A book I found facinating at first, but have later realised is full of errors. I don't know what you find mysterious about the lines, but I'll try to summarise the points I think you might wonder about, if you've already researched and discarded any of these, good for you. A better treatment of the subject can be found at www.skepdic.com.

<>The lines couldn't have been made with the primitive technology available to the locals.

Yes, they could. Ah, this is where my snow trampling is relevant. Just because they are huge, their construction is no mystery.

<>The lines shouldn't have survived for so long.
Yes, they should. The Nazca plains is a stony desert. The rocks and topsoil have a dark red colour, while the underlying soil is a lighter colour. It's not light soil or sand which is vulnerable to wind, but rocks and hard soil which isn't eroded easily in desert climate.

<>The lines have no known purpose.
Correct. But we can guess. They could be a tribute to the gods, part of burial rituals or some sort of sympathetic magic. Religion is a much more likely guess than aliens or super-civilisations.

Or do you disagree?

You said>> "Why do I believe it? Because. it appears to make sense according to the knowledge I possess at the time."

That's how my beliefs are guided as well, I'm just a bit more strict with the knowledge part, and admittedly a bit cynical.

From what I've read about ley lines they were created as an idea in the start of the 20th century. A man called Alfred Watkins discovered that certain ancient landmarks in an area of England could be linked by a series of straight lines, this convinced him that they were ancient trade routes. The mystical power ideas came later, and with them the belief that this was ancient knowledge that had guided the placement of those landmarks.
Now, as far as I've understood the only verification of the idea of ley lines is mapping them by dowsing, correct me if I'm wrong.
And dowsing is one thing I don't believe in. Why? Because despite anecdotal evidence to the efficiency of dowsing it fails consistently in scientific tests.

<> "Haven't been proven scientifically" doesn't equal "doesn't exist".

<> "Has consistently failed in scientific tests" doesn't equal "doesn't work".

To a skeptic, however, the last bullet indicates that something cannot be accepted as fact.
To someone very skeptic it justifies the belief that it does indeed 'not work'.
And to a cynic like me it definitely justifies that belief, I even go so far as to disbelief anything that hasn't been proven scientifically, regardless of whether it is possible to device a scientific test. But I try not to let that cloud my judgement in cases where scientific testing is possible, like dowsing.

You may believe in dowsing based on anecdotal evidence, but I will continue to disbelieve it based on its performance in scientific tests.

I still wonder, do you have any other evidence backing the existence of ley lines?

I'm sorry if I give offense in any way, I've found lately that I don't deal well with people who don't agree with me. But I try.

Hi NAITA.

Absolutely no offence taken whatsoever! I don`t take offence simply because someone has an opinion that may be different from my own. I would only take offence if that opinion was expressed in an offensive manner and you havent done that... so no, no offence taken.

I know what you mean about alienating people and I also understand the feeling one gets when something is written and is there for keeps, but on reflection, we would have preferred to have done it differently.

I have to say that I donot believe in something simply for beliefs sake. The beliefs I have are based on outside evidence (be it anecdotal OR scientific)and my own consideration of said evidence.

They are also based on personal experience. Ultimately, I think that is the only evidence that I accept without question.

I found that the points you raised are very valid ones and thats fair enough.

I wonder if we shall end up trying to convert oneanother! (Just joking.)

Before I go on, I would like to say that your description of where you grew up sounded absolutely lovely.

(Thanks for the web address by the way.)

Dowsing.
I do agree that SOME cases appear to be `dubious`, but there is also evidence around that is quite convincing.

For instance... a programme called `Strange but True` was on just the other night and it concerned two experienced skiers who had become lost after taking the wrong route. The rescuers were unable to find them and these men would have died if not found before nightfall.
A `dowser` used his skill and a map of the area to locate the men. He then called the rescuers (who were thankfully open-minded enough to listen to him) and the men were found... precisely where he said they would be.

There is also a `dowser` that is officially employed to find water in a desert area. However, this is irrevalent because I cannot remember which country or who he is! One therefore wonders why I mentioned it.

I am going to have to cut our conversation short for now because my Mum has just arrived. I shall continue later.

Jane

You shouldn't accept personal experience as evidence unquestioned. Humans are really good at misremembering and/or misunderstanding so even personal experience should be examined. I'm not saying you should run double blind tests on yourself, although I would, but have a brief think even when it's something you've experienced yourself.

I don't think there is a danger of use converting each other, at least not of you converting me.

I used to accept anecdotal evidence as support or counter-argument to my beliefs. But I no longer do. The regularity with which the media misrepresents or even invents anecdotal evidence for the sake of mammon is one reason. Any report on TV that doesn't ring true and I will check other sources.
And people are no better, they will consciously or unconsciously modify their tale to fit their beliefs.
And I'm no better, although ignoring anecdotal evidence is somewhat justified in light of its extreme unreliability and the fact that I just don't _believe it_, the choice to leave it _completely_ out of my decision process is not necessarily good.

And the fact is that I just don't believe anything exists that can not be tested scientifically, this might make me close minded, but it's really difficult to change ones basic beliefs. I came to this way of seeing the world gradually over the years, and the fact that all the paranormal phenomena out there fail scientific tests means that bringing me back is impossible. Of course, if someone succeeds at dowsing in a scientific test that will remove it from the realm of the paranormal and into the scientific. It will be inexplicable, but still scientific.
I just can not bring my mind around to the idea that something that's supposed to be able to give accurate answers to questions should fail just because it's being observed by someone skeptic.

The favourite 'evidence' that all skeptics bring into the discussion at some point is James Randi's million dollar challenge. Have you heard of it?

The standard procedure for the preliminary tests in this challenge is that the ... I almost said victim, I'll look it up, since I think 'contestant' is wrong
Ah, they use the word applicant.
Ok, the applicant and those administrating the test, I'll use the singular challenger, agree on what the applicant claims, for example the ability to find water with a wand, and how this should be tested. For example by using opaque containers containing either water or an equal mass of sand. A setup could use one with water and 9 with sand.
The applicant is then allowed to check conditions while knowing which one contains water. Several test runs are performed to ensure that the applicant isn't disturbed by pipes in the ground, clouds in the air or general bad vibes. When the applicant agrees that conditions are favourable, the actual test is performed.
And as of yet no one has been able to pass this.
What surprises me is that the applicants almost invariably decide that their powers were disturbed somehow. Even if they were actually countered by 'skeptical energy' one would expect this to affect the test runs as well.

Now there is no such thing as certainty, and it can't be claimed that this testing alone or taken together with other tests prove that dowsing doesn't work. It's entirely possible that some paranormal effect nulls the ability of everyone in a test environment or that the 'real' dowsers haven't been tested. But you can't convince me of it.

Evidence of paranormal phenomena is invariably anectdotal, badly documented or scientifically unsound, while evidence against is well documented and independently verified. I still say us close minded people have a good case, even if we are potentially holding back the progress of science.

And yes, the place I grew up was very nice, at least at times. But then, no place is particulary nice when there's sleet and wind and cold and such.