User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 80

  1. #31
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    What evidence do you have that it isn't staged, that it isn't a parlor trick or simple coincidence? I don't mean to be a critic, but just taking something like that on faith is more than I can handle.

    I've heard of it, but I don't really believe in it. Underground water can't make sticks move without touching them. That's just not possible. I generally avoid people who believe in this. It seems too much like some kind of cult thing, and there's no telling what else they might accept as reasonable if they do this.
    Logically, you are correct. It shouldn't work. It makes no obvious sense.

    But I've read and heard enough from real-live people that my curiosity filed it in the "Must Do Further Research" category.

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    But what I'm saying is, maybe they don't know consciously that they can, so their conscious mind prevents them from finding it without the stick. People's processing of their senses is normally limited, and perhaps they have access to information they don't normally let themselves process, and projecting onto the stick allows them to perceive an aspect of reality that's normally obscured from consciousness.
    I'm sorry, but this is sounding even more complicated than the simple suggestion that someone's using a stick to find water.

    Doesn't mean you're not right, but it still comes off as a real stretch.

    Quote Originally Posted by sundowning View Post
    ...and at the risk of sounding like a dick, it's all BS. There is nothing that can describe the effect. And it also shows a general lack of knowledge about the way something called the 'water table' works. Dowse ten 'streams', and drill randomly ten times and you're going to find similar/same results.
    I knew an ISTP would pull through for me. Seriously, though, I was wondering about confirmation bias on this one.

    Makes me wonder about the Ouija again too. (Hmm... Do dead spirits drink water?)

    The "landscape" theory seemed to make some sense to me, where someone intuitively recognizes the signs of water by the terrain (sort of an unconscious patter recog at work). Still... I'm open.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  2. #32
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Hrmmm... aren't you saying we shouldn't trust in water divining then? The diviner is making a positive assertion.
    I personally don't care what your "diviner" straw man asserts. I am more interested in the phenomenon as such, and not the claims of the culture from which it springs.

    As I've mentioned before, I've tried it, and it seemed to work. I'm willing to entertain the idea that there was some idiomotor function attendant on my experiment, but I'm also willing to entertain the idea that there is some physical cause for the phenomenon, one which remains as yet unexplained. I do not attribute the phenomenon to any "metaphysical" cause.

    What I am willing to do thus far, which is the point of my previous post, is to have an open mind.

  3. #33
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    I personally don't care what your "diviner" straw man asserts. I am more interested in the phenomenon as such, and not the claims of the culture from which it springs.
    Oh, the straw man doesn't assert anything, don't worry. It's you who are asserting something that cannot be measured, isn't demonstrable in controlled conditions and saying that we should keep an open mind because information, in a generic sense, isn't perfect.

    The problem is that you used a scientific example that explains something that was flawed. Science has nothing to explain here - it has no positive assertion. The only skepticism suggested by the Newton would be that the phenmonen doens't exist. We aren't talking about measuring what allows it to happen, only that it doesn't happen.

    If you disagree and think it can be done, there is a gigantic prize and a huge contribution to science to be made. I'm open to changing my mind based on new information, not belief through skepticism.

  4. #34
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Oh, the straw man doesn't assert anything, don't worry. It's you who are asserting something that cannot be measured, isn't demonstrable in controlled conditions and saying that we should keep an open mind because information, in a generic sense, isn't perfect.

    The problem is that you used a scientific example that explains something that was flawed. Science has nothing to explain here - it has no positive assertion. The only skepticism suggested by the Newton would be that the phenmonen doens't exist. We aren't talking about measuring what allows it to happen, only that it doesn't happen.

    If you disagree and think it can be done, there is a gigantic prize and a huge contribution to science to be made. I'm open to changing my mind based on new information, not belief through skepticism.
    I venture now to suggest that all your information is hearsay. All you know on the topic is what you've read.

    Or am I wrong?

  5. #35
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    I venture now to suggest that all your information is hearsay. All you know on the topic is what you've read.

    Or am I wrong?
    Nope, completely correct.

  6. #36
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Nope, completely correct.
    Well, I would not say this to show a perspective that is superior to yours in any way, but rather one that is simply different: I have felt the stick move in my hands, and that compels me to investigate further before forming a final judgment.

    From your vantage point, your conclusion is a perfectly reasonable one, and indeed probably the best one. However, it won't suffice for me.

  7. #37
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Well, I would not say this to show a perspective that is superior to yours in any way, but rather one that is simply different: I have felt the stick move in my hands, and that compels me to investigate further before forming a final judgment.

    From your vantage point, your conclusion is a perfectly reasonable one, and indeed probably the best one. However, it won't suffice for me.
    I don't disagree - what I'm saying is that the Newton example should work the other way around... more that you should have an open mind towards what caused it to jump. That is not a reason for skeptics to have an open mind (ie: it might be true). Skeptics have claimed nothing other than "please show me", which is an open mind. You can prove it to them anytime. The positive assertion that it jumped when it found water should be open to the possibility that it may not have actually done so if it can't be done under controlled conditions accurately enough to actual be said to predict the location of water.

  8. #38
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    I don't disagree - what I'm saying is that the Newton example should work the other way around... more that you should have an open mind towards what caused it to jump.
    I've already said I'm open to the idea that it's an idiomotor process.

  9. #39
    will make your day Carebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    I've already said I'm open to the idea that it's an idiomotor process.
    LOL
    I think it's normally spelled ideomotor, because the idea controls the movement, but I guess idiomotor is more correct in some situations.

  10. #40
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    "idio" is more likely to be the proper prefix where I'm involved.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 370
    Last Post: 02-07-2016, 09:54 PM
  2. What's the deal with this headlining news story (Casey Anthony)?
    By swordpath in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 137
    Last Post: 09-08-2012, 11:10 AM
  3. [MBTItm] What's the deal with this?
    By Lily flower in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-13-2010, 02:58 AM
  4. [NF] To NF males, what's the deal with this guy?
    By dee in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 01-26-2010, 01:50 PM
  5. What's the deal with Socionics?
    By alicia91 in forum Socionics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-02-2008, 08:56 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO