Posted by Peter H on February 25, 2006 at 19:53:09 from 86.130.128.245 user Peter_H.
In Reply to: Re: AR Locations - dowsing posted by John Nichols on February 25, 2006 at 05:45:13:
John - for the avoidance of doubt, I repeat that I, like you, accept the efficacy of on-location dowsing for water. However, I do not accept any theory that water at a location can be found by dowsing over a map of that location. It is not a matter of some new type of force or phenomenon so far unknown to us. We are dealing here with a man-made chart on a piece of paper. Even before we start trying to connect marks on a map with underground force fields many miles away, can we consider the map? It is accepted that different maps of the same area will often show discrepancies. Does it matter which map the 'dowser' uses? Supposing I managed to substitute a completely bogus map without the 'dowser' noticing, what would happen? The bogus map could be printed on exactly the same type of paper with exactly the same type of ink or markings. Does it matter what date the map was made? The whole thing is simply a logical nullity, unaffectable by any scientific discoveries. It is, of course, a beautifully romantic idea, and therein lies its persistent renown, I fear.
So how do I explain the apparent recorded success of remote dowsing? As John has already suggested - coincidence. The phenomenon of coincidence, I believe, is much more common than we generally admit, because the human mind is conditioned to randomness in all things. I have known extraordinary coincidences in my own life, and so have others. I have heard people say that finding Daddy on the quay at Flushing (in We Didn't Mean . .) was too much of a coincidence. I totally disagree. It is exactly the sort of thing that happens all the time, but is blamed on superstition, signs of the zodiac etc, or simply not believed at all.
(BTW, I note that AndyB has not posted for some time. I trust all is well with the Buxton beard-biter?)