News1 min ago
Water Divining
266 Answers
I’ve just been listening to ‘The Bottom Line’ on Radio 4 where the guests were the vice president of CH2M Hill, the CEO of Veolia Water, and the CEO of Anglian Water, who all said that water diviners are used within their respective industries. One said if he hadn’t seen it with his own eyes, he would never have believed it works. Listen to the last few minutes of the programme from about 27.14.
http://
Your thoughts?
http://
Your thoughts?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Incidentally, I never said that I haven't considered the possibility of new evidence. I have considered the possibility and by my reckoning it is minimal. Still there, to be sure, but minimal enough as to be negligible. Please stop putting words into my mouth.
(Yes, I'm aware of the irony, and will endeavour to be more careful when quoting you in future.)
(Yes, I'm aware of the irony, and will endeavour to be more careful when quoting you in future.)
Jim, //Still wanting to know what it means to you to say "don't know", though. How much uncertainty is there?//
There is no degree of certainty or uncertainty. I simply don’t know.
//Also, why is this scientific conclusion so much more questionable than all the others that you are presumably happy to accept as genuine? Such as, say, the ones that led to this conversation even being possible.//
Because that scientific conclusion offers nothing to support it except a current absence of evidence. Of course I’m happy to accept the technology that led to this conversation – it’s demonstrable. I’m using it.
Chris, // In short "We don't know"//
Which is exactly what I’m saying.
LG, good post - except for the last half of the last paragraph. It's my understanding that science thinks it may, at some time, discover hitherto unknown laws of physics - but I'm not a scientist - I simply listen to them.
There is no degree of certainty or uncertainty. I simply don’t know.
//Also, why is this scientific conclusion so much more questionable than all the others that you are presumably happy to accept as genuine? Such as, say, the ones that led to this conversation even being possible.//
Because that scientific conclusion offers nothing to support it except a current absence of evidence. Of course I’m happy to accept the technology that led to this conversation – it’s demonstrable. I’m using it.
Chris, // In short "We don't know"//
Which is exactly what I’m saying.
LG, good post - except for the last half of the last paragraph. It's my understanding that science thinks it may, at some time, discover hitherto unknown laws of physics - but I'm not a scientist - I simply listen to them.
@ Naomi - As i said, there is a small prospect of some new science coming along. Some people were rather hopeful, for instance, that we did not discover the Higgs Boson, since that would have opened up rather more doors.
But the state of our knowledge today about nature and the cosmos is exponentially greater than it was just decades ago. The gaps where a new science or a new force might appear are very much smaller. So is it possible? Yes. Is it probable? Very unlikely.
It would be exciting and amazing if it did happen though :)
But the state of our knowledge today about nature and the cosmos is exponentially greater than it was just decades ago. The gaps where a new science or a new force might appear are very much smaller. So is it possible? Yes. Is it probable? Very unlikely.
It would be exciting and amazing if it did happen though :)
In terms of the unknown laws of physics -- oh, they're out there somewhere. But, and here's the catch, those unknown laws of physics will also have to replicate, or contain, our current understanding when it's appropriate. Put simply, the model that's expressed in my avatar is too good to be entirely wrong. It's incomplete, certainly, but fits and describes the world as we measure it too a stupendous degree of accuracy.
So any new physics would have to extend, rather than replace, the current state of understanding. As far as I can tell such effects as dowsing, or general psi phenomena, would replace rather than extend modern physics.
So any new physics would have to extend, rather than replace, the current state of understanding. As far as I can tell such effects as dowsing, or general psi phenomena, would replace rather than extend modern physics.
Jim, I'm not putting words in your mouth. Stop getting shirty all the time. I intended this to be a discussion - not a row.
//So any new physics would have to extend, rather than replace, the current state of understanding. //
Yes, indeed. Sounds good to me.
LG, //It would be exciting and amazing if it did happen though :) //
Yes, it would.
//So any new physics would have to extend, rather than replace, the current state of understanding. //
Yes, indeed. Sounds good to me.
LG, //It would be exciting and amazing if it did happen though :) //
Yes, it would.
Woofgang -- your modification is true in general, I just think not in the specific case of modern physics. In particular, as our current understanding of the subject includes the known "This isn't complete", any new discovery is not necessarily going to be a surprise. We're looking for the new already.
"Woofgang -- your modification is true in general, I just think not in the specific case of modern physics. In particular, as our current understanding of the subject includes the known "This isn't complete", any new discovery is not necessarily going to be a surprise. We're looking for the new already."
I don't see anything in that statement that excludes modern physics from my comment?
I don't see anything in that statement that excludes modern physics from my comment?
There is some golf being played today for those who hadn't noticed (come on, Lee, you're making hard work of it!), but I did manage to listen to the whole program. It's always a pleasure to listen to real experts (in almost any field) - super program. But the water companies using dowsers, oh dear me, how sad,and why? Still people of my age will remember being asked to submit job applications "in the first instance" because as I recall companies employed graphologists. And of course there were a number of maverick men of science who were taken in by Uri Geller.
pixie, that's not really an answer though, is it. These are three intelligent and highly successful men in control of major companies. To be perfectly honest, I was amazed at what they said in this interview - but say it they did - and it doesn't appear to be a case of 'belief'. They say it works - and I can only assume their respective boards agree with them.
Yes, of course it's an answer. It is a case that they believe it scientifically works, even though there is no proof. A company can be taken in just as easily as anyone else. Companies are made up from individuals. In my opinion, while they think it saves them money, they will continue with it. Which other methods have they used which are less successful? (and i don't mean more expensive)
