Psychometry/Hume

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: John Lozier: "Northeastern Anthropological Society"
• Previous message: Ezra Zubrow: "info request: "published ethics materials for course""

now, let me get this straight... because i question the uncritical
presentation on National Public Radio, of a story about a psychic
archaeologist, i am likely to be close-minded, unanthropological,
likely to dismiss new, complex scientific methods [because they would
seem like 'magic' to me], probably a lousy field archaeologist, and
no doubt i kick my dog, too???

to Leo T. Walsh, Tom Riley [hi, Tom], and M. Kleindienst--
i recognize that dowsing is a cultural fact; it is a human behavior
that exists now, as it did in the past. does the fact that it exists
make it true, or lend credence to the process [Kleidienst said
"cannot explain why... but it works for me..(!!!)]. gosh! do chain
letters really affect our lives/luck simply because they exist and
people claim they do work?

tell me, if i were lucky [and good..] enough to get short-listed at a
nice university somewhere, and i was interviewed for the academic
position, which statement below would help me in the interview
process:

STATEMENT 1:
yes, Dr. Spacecadet, I do believe that there is some truth to the
practice of dowsing. beyond the fact that it is a time-worn and
trusted behavior in the ozarks and other places, look at Hume's
wonderful analysis of the practice. i believe we must look into
using psychometry more frequently, too. i am apalled at all those
old-fashioned archaeologists who will not even consider using dowsing
and psychic readings to inform and empower their site reports.

or...

STATEMENT 2:
well, Dr. Statusquo, I agree that dowsing and psychometry are
interesting behaviors, and I acknowledge that some professionals do
believe in the practices. however, I tend more towards the accepted
methods and practices of science. while archaeology cannot always be
empirical, nor can we always 'prove' things, i feel that documented,
repeatable, sound investigative methods are more desirable than a
process which cannot be understood, even if it works. and, i agree
that there are many complex laboratory methods which seem to be magic
and incredible to me... yet i use them. but these other methods,
however new, untried, or complex, have been developed, tested, and
refined by dedicated scientific minds. and speaking of minds, yes
sir, Dr. Statusquo, I will keep mine open... i can see that i must be
ready to accept and use new methods. I just don't believe that
dowsing is a method that archaeologists can reliably use.

so... all you Hume-lovers and dowsers, which point of view makes more
sense?

p.s. if anyone knows of an academic position for a psychic
archaeologist, please let me know. i'll apply for anything, and i
really do want to be open minded about this.

jim carucci

• Next message: John Lozier: "Northeastern Anthropological Society"
• Previous message: Ezra Zubrow: "info request: "published ethics materials for course""