Re: Psychometry

Leo Thomas Walsh (ai653@KSU.KSU.EDU)
Thu, 8 Dec 1994 11:25:55 -0600

> 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
I have never said anything other than your statement #2. I said that,
just like early thoeries in such pratices as carbon dating were
ridiculed and shunned, so psychometry is now. We should be open minded
enough to recognize this as a new source of data that we really don't
understand at the moment. I suppose ( notice the word suppose ) that for
some, the idea of psychometry hits a little too close to home to make it
a comfortable topic. If someone put forth that you could smoke crack and
learn a to translate all of the Mayan glyphs in just one day, I would
become a bit defensive too. The scientific endeavor thrives on new ideas
that seem to discredit the old. No, just because you believe something
to be true doesn't mean that it is true. People believed that the Earth
was flat even though it wasn't. If you apply this argument to your own
theories, then just because you believe them to be true, doesn't mean
that they are true. You might say that "I have proven my thoeries to be
true using scientific, empirical methods that go beyond mere belief."
The words used in this way are so emically defined that the previous
statement reallt carries no weight. When a Balinese ritual expert
carries out an "experiment" to see whether or not the spirits really do
exist and can protect us from harm, a very "empiric" method is used.
The expert dances on very hot coals and is not burned. What more proof
do you need? "Well, its just that the mind has a powerful effect on the
body and due to a drug enhanced conscienceness, the ritual expert was
not burned," said the sceptic. Then how does the mind get such control?
"Uhhhh," said the skeptic. Why can't it be that there really are
spirits that can keep us from harm?
I don't believe in this psychometry right now. What made me respond in
the first place was the responces saying that is was a hoax and
shouldn't be connected with any real science. I am not the embodiment
of the Mr. Spacecadet that was described in the original message.
Leo T. Walsh (