I know what you're saying in defence of Science and its methodology. I'm not dismissing the scientific concept in general, or rather in its stated aim - to seek to understand that which is not currently known. That is not science - that's curiosity. If scientists are now the sole administrators of curiosity and seeking truth and knowledge then there is no room for wild free thinkers to contribute - an aspect of modern mainstream science's approach that particularly annoys me - this sticking a flag in the ground of thought and claiming its dominion.
As far as I am aware there are no instruments capable of detecting the kind of energy that my dowsing rods are reacting to. Now, I know that the rods are only reacting because I, as a human being, am part of that instrument. As far as I know there is no mechanical device that can make the same readings as I am able to make. Please tell me if there is - but I haven't seen one advertised, or heard of one in my readings. It may exist - I'm just not aware of it.
So, that leaves me with a number of dilemmas. Firstly, I am able to register and interpret some form of information that is being translated somehow into the movement of the dowsing rods - this is cheap, easy, and portable. Why would I defer that to a machine even if one existed?
Secondly, how would I interpret the results of any machine that was capable of registering this energy form that I can detect? With my dowsing rods I can subtly, easily and almost without limitation change the search criteria, AND simply understand the responses. I can program those responses such that I can get specific answers to enquiries, or I can leave them to demonstrate some natural form of the energy which I can then record. How would this be possible in any other way?
Using the rods I am free to explore in an almost limitless fashion. What kind of exploration could I do within the confines of a scientific approach, no matter how sophisticated?
A scientific approach also seems to close off the other invaluable aspect - in what way am I able to use my own mind as a receiver for information if I subject it to the strictures of a rational or mechanical testing system? Surely one of the tenets of the scientific method is to remove the experimenter from the equation thus rendering the experiment generic and repeatable in outside of time and space? (Let's not get too embroiled in the annoying little aspect of quantum physics and the fact that no experiment can be outside of either the subjugations of time or space).
And so because I can't see the advantage of it, I am not ...how can I put it...I'm just not really interested in trying to limit the way that I can approach the investigation of these energies. It's simply that. Dowsing is so free and flexible that all other forms of tool-based or rule-based enquiry seems pointless.
I am only concerned with information that I can use. I don't care about it being provable. I'm not concerned that it is not acceptable. I have no qualms about it being "in my mind". You may call this Pragmatism. It is, but it is also a rational enquiry. I do not simply "come up" with things. I have a logical approach to questioning, I plan my tests, I seek to rule out extraneous variables, I consider the results carefully and I demonstrate where possible that I have no ruled out other factors that I might not be aware of. Doesn't that sound like a scientific method? Not only. It's a sensible time-saving and valuable approach that yields direct usable results that feed back into my world-view and knowledge base so that I can learn from it. I call this "pragmatic curiosity", not science.
What about the woolly stuff? Oh there's lots of that too. I work with intuition, coincidence, signs, guidance from spirits, death energies, shades, the elements and animals. Now, under no circumstances that I have encountered could any of that kind of gnostic information be acceptable to a scientific approach. It is scoffed at, laughed at, ridiculed, trashed and generally belittled at every stage of a discussion with anyone who I have ever met who claims to be a "rationalist" or to work with a scientific method. And you wonder why I don't favour such a method? Too limiting. Closed minds. Closed minds do not form new concepts - they only refine existing ones.
Now, maybe I'm mixing up a whole load of things here, and I am certain there are a number of scientists who are open to new modes of thinking and experimenting. I just haven't encountered one yet, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Let's just say - they don't seem good role models for me and my enquiries into this invisible realm of mind, energy and spirit. When I come across a scientists talking in those terms, then I may be open to a discussion about how such matters may be investigated using the scientific methods.
Do you know such people?