Posts

“What’s the Scientific Proof of Dowsing?”

What Convinces You?

Has anyone ever said to you, “I don't believe in what you do because there's no scientific proof of dowsing”?

What exactly can you infer from that statement? It's one you hear a lot these days, about a lot of different subjects. It's the pat objection of any skeptic.

In this post, we will address blind skepticism, which is just a form of bias based on nothing. Perhaps in another post, we can address other types of skepticism, because there actually ARE healthy degrees of skepticism.

Let's deconstruct the statement about scientific proof of dowsing on a number of levels. First, when someone refuses to believe something, they need a reason for their skepticism. Science is seen as THE authority on whether something is fact or not, so it would seem logical that skeptics will fall back on this.

As a reason for being skeptical, this is in fact pretty lame. The person is saying, “I don't know anything about what you are saying, but I don't believe it.” So the person is refusing to think; to hear; to analyze; to decide for himself. Instead, he opts to use Science as an excuse. In fact, he probably has no idea what Science really says about your subject, since he knows nothing of the subject other than occasional sound bites on TV.


Credibility cover

Find out what a real scientific investigation of dowsing discovered…


But is that the sole reason so many parrot this statement? Of course not. That statement reflects a number of things going on beneath the surface:

  1. The person is too lazy or doesn't feel competent thinking about something he doesn't have a pigeonhole for
  2. He has no interest in committing time to discussing it, as it will only make him uncomfortable or reveal his lack of knowledge
  3. He probably feels incompetent to debate the subject, not having done any research, not having any real facts, and actually, not having anything more than a prejudice against believing. So he needs to squelch the subject fast, because he senses you know more about this than he does, and you may even have some compelling facts or a story he cannot refute.

Bottom line is: People have a natural tendency to avoid changing their minds and their prejudices. Thus, trotting out Science is like having big brother show up to a fight…they've trumped you.

This is analogous to the statement you used to hear a lot, about something not being in the Bible/or being in the Bible, as if that settles any debate or argument you might present. (Who wants to argue with God?)

Science is the new religion, and people follow it faithfully without questioning anything. Some of these same mindless ones make fun of fundamentalist religious types for their blind following of the Bible, as if blindly following their conception of Science is somehow superior.

In any case, it is not your mission to prove anything. If dowsing works for you, great. If they don't want to try it, fine.

Have you ever been asked to ‘prove' dowsing? How did you handle it? Let us know in the comments section below

Science and Dowsing

Can They Play Nicely?

Why don't science and dowsing play nice together? I've noticed that dowsing, more than any other intuitive method, attracts engineers, scientists and those with a strong left-brain function. I myself come from a science background. And yet, dowsing and science don't seem compatible.

Over the years, I've watched in frustration as people try to disprove dowsing with half-baked pseudo-experiments, or worse yet, just dismiss it with idiotic (did I say that out loud?) statements like, “Dowsing hasn't been scientifically proven.”

Science and dowsing: a theory

After years of observation and thinking about this subject, I finally have a theory. Science, as the new religion, is treating dowsing in the same fashion that some fundamental religions did or still do. In a sense, when science and religion take this tack, they are serving the same function: telling you what you can or cannot believe in. (Check out this post on dowsing and religion for another viewpoint.)

Now that may sound harsh, but it's true that the scientific and religious establishments hand down dogma. If you don't accept the dogma, you are a heretic. As a heretic, you are subject to various forms of humiliation, ostracism and punishment. This has been demonstrated for centuries. And Science practices the same thing. It humiliates and excommunicates just like religions do.

Credibility coverYou can check out a detailed investigation of water dowsing here:

The Credibility Of Dowsing: Scientific Proof Of Water Dowsing

The greatest scientific discoveries came from heretical thinking, and they were not accepted by the establishment without tons of wrangling.

Max Planck, the originator of quantum theory, said:

     A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

     New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment.

     Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.

If Science cannot solve the ultimate mysteries of Nature, then why do we give ANY power to anyone who says, “Dowsing hasn't been proven scientifically”? I believe we do so out of conditioning and fear.

Your free will and the ability to actually think about things is a wonderful gift. Dowsing can help you exercise both.

You may come under attack for seeing things differently, but when the mindless people parrot the party line, just smile and keep on using dowsing to improve your life. Maybe someday, they, too will ‘wake up', but it isn't your job to convince them. You know dowsing works.

What's your take on science and dowsing? Do you see them as being rivals or do you think they can co-exist? Let us know your views in the comments section below

Dowsing Doesn’t Work??

Is it True?

“Dowsing doesn't work” is something you can hear quite often, if you listen to some people, usually those who consider themselves rational and scientific.

They ponder what they conceive of as evidence and make a pronouncement that dowsing doesn’t work and that all dowsers are frauds who are out to dupe the world with their wrong beliefs.

It makes me smile. It really does, because they expect me to argue back and I don’t, because they don’t want to hear the truth.

Credibility coverHere's a book which takes a long and critical look at water dowsing.

The best study of its kind!

The Credibility Of Dowsing: Scientific Proof Of Water Dowsing

Why do critics say dowsing doesn't work?

The truth is that they base their criticism on the way they think the world works and how they think we human beings should fit into that picture.

And they’re pretty much always going to be wrong, because the picture they have of the world is so broken up, so unfinished, so full of gaps that they don’t have a picture at all. If they are lucky, they might have the beginnings of a frame with a couple dabs of color in it, but that’s about it.

I’m not just saying this to feel good. It’s the truth.

The staggering amount of ignorance bouncing around in the scientific community make your mind boggle.

For example, human prehistory? Everything we’ve got, all the bones and fragments of, maybe 5,000 individuals? It would fit into the back of a pickup truck. And that, apparently, is more than enough to make definitive statements about our ancestry.

We don’t even know what there is in the world: new species are always being discovered in unlikely places and there aren’t enough people trained to place them into the existing framework.

We don’t know why some spectacularly infectious diseases don’t spread but kill only one or two people. (In 1969, a doctor at a Yale lab contracted Lassa fever and survived, but a technician nearby, in a separate lab with no direct exposure, caught it and died.) Or why the 1918 flu epidemic was so deadly or how it came to explode into action and then killed mostly those in their 20’s and 30’s, not the very young or very old, the traditional target groups. Or why, before that, 5 million died in ten years from a sleeping sickness.

We have better maps of Mars than of our own seabeds.

Drilling deep into the crust of the earth revealed rock saturated with water – something thought not to be possible 10 kilometers down!

We don’t know how proteins do what they do in combinations. We don’t know what most of the DNA we have does. We don’t know how life actually managed to come about.

But, hey! Let’s tell all the dowsers that they are fooling people and what they do doesn’t work. That would be a bit like declaring that the takahe, a large flightless bird of New Zealand, was definitely extinct. Definitely! For over 200 years in fact.

Unfortunately, in 1995, it was rediscovered.

Taken together it means that any general condemnation by science is about as useful as saying that the takahe doesn’t exist any more. We don’t know so much about this planet and about ourselves that it seems just plain presumptuous to say what exactly humans can and can’t do.

And that’s why I don’t argue with scientists. It hurts me to see them upset. 🙂

(All the examples were taken from Bill Bryson's ‘A Short History Of Nearly Everything'.)

What do you think of critics who say dowsing doesn't work? Are their arguments valid? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below