- #1
Thread Owner
[If you are easily upset by probing inquiry and strong opinion, and a faithful practitioner of LRL, you may wish to skip this post - the goal here is provoking thoughtful discussion, not generating anger and increased blood pressure. 
]
First, let me preface my request (challenge if you prefer) of the LRL faithful with my own observations about your articles of faith.
Although the LRL pious among you may disagree, I believe the following passage speaks to the theory behind LRL:
"Thus the logical basis of Contagious Magic, like that of Homoeopathic Magic, is a mistaken association of ideas; its physical basis, if we may speak of such a thing, like the physical basis of Homoeopathic Magic, is a material medium of some sort which, like the ether of modern physics, is assumed to unite distant objects and to convey impressions from one to the other." - Sir James George Frazer in The Golden Bough (1922)
It is certainly true, that divining (the putative progenitor of LRL), like other forms of magic, is a very old practice. Curses, hexes, calling of demons, and even human sacrifice, also have a rich and long lived history. And all of these practices have been long held in high regard in certain quarters. I doubt that there are any readers of this post whose ancestors did not believe in the power of one or more of these practices, and there are still those today who give credence to these sorts of beliefs. For example, "mal de ojo" is a common belief among recent Hispanic immigrants to the U.S.,.
Those who have studied behavioral psychology will see the same mechanism at work in areas such as this, and specifically, in LRL believers, as that which has disrupted so many behavioral experiments - extraneous reinforcement. The pigeons are "dancing" so to speak.
Of course, those who sell LRL equipment would at least appear to be followers of another dogma, that of bank robber Willie Sutton, who explained that he robbed banks, "because that's where the money is".
So, I have a very simple request of the LRL believers out there - a "challenge" for those who prefer that more inflammatory didactic. Using something approximating correct grammar and spelling, and structured, rational logic, please give me a brief, coherent, and dispositive hypothesis for the function of LRL and your devices.
Specifically, you should explain what it is you are sensing, and how you are sensing it. This should include an explanation of the mechanism and/or circuitry of any devices you feel are a good example of a reliable and effective device. It is also asked that you offer an objective metric by which one can observe the phenomena you describe. You should be specific, accurate, and complete about what parts or components are needed, and what the intended function of the part is in this context. It should be possible for a reasonable person to reproduce the experiment with the information you provide.
And finally, you must be consistent with the laws of physics in your explanation. This is necessary to a rational discourse, and if you stray from it you are simply reinforcing my initial assertion that those of you who purchase and use LRL equipment are religiously devout practitioners of a magical belief. If you say that what the person is wearing, or the alignment of the moon can play havoc with the effectiveness of your device, then you must also offer a testable hypothesis to explain the effects that such factors have on the phenomena we are measuring with your devices.
If the nature of your "science" exceeds that of commonly known and accepted science, then it is also incumbent upon you you to meet the same standards of explanation, proof, and observability, as have been set forth for your explanation of LRL and any devices you wish to advocate for as viable LRL devices.
For those who are considering the purchase of an LRL device, if the seller cannot answer the questions I have raised, I suggest that you shop elsewhere - perhaps for one of the legitimate technologies. There are a number of good books on geophysics as applied to archaeology to help you get started, check Amazon and Barnes & Noble. I find magnetometry (gradiometry) and soil resistivity profiling to be very affordable and demonstrably effective tools for mapping large sites.
Not only are the above techniques well proven and thoroughly explained, but you can build the equipment yourself for a modest cost. No need to waste hard earned money while filling the purses of hucksters and con artists. There are web resources for building fluxgate magnetometers and an excellent book on building the (mostly obsolete, but still effective) proton precession magnetometer. Soil resistivity studies can be done with items you may already have on hand, but again, there are web resources for building the equipment. GPR, while useful, is beyond the average budget.
And if you are interested in legitimate tools for searching on a larger scale than the above devices will accomodate, I would suggest you read "Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology" by Parcak, "Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective" by (Various Authors), or the soon to be released "Satellite Remote Sensing: A New Tool for Archaeology (Remote Sensing and Digital Image Processing)" by Lasaponara. You may be able to find such imagery from publicly funded sources at a modest cost, or even at no cost.
For the LRL convicted, I have little doubt that the words of Omar Khayyám will apply:
"Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out of the same Door as in I went."
Respectfully, and without malice, until I receive a reply which is substantially compliant with the parameters I have set forth, and whose testable hypothesis withstands rigorous consideration, I have little choice but to class practitioners of LRL's liturgy, and keepers of its doubtful pneuma, as being one or more of the following: unschooled, analphabetic, misinformed, gullible, schizo-affective with a peculiar hyper-religiosity based on superstitious psuedo-scientific beliefs (Al Gore Disease). I list these as causalities, not as name calling, and I don't think LRL practitioners are lacking in intelligence, in general they are intelligent and inquisitive folks. I just think they are confused about reality by way of the aforementioned mechanisms. Others will undoubtedly take issue with these conclusions. No doubt any ensuing discourse will be instructive and enlightening.
I stand ready to be persuaded. Are you up to the challenge? (sorry, no money is in play
)
(NB: Rants, invectives, taunting, and verbal vitriol are the refuge of those with no facts on their side, and no substantive point to be made. Such replies will likely go unanswered, at least by me. They will serve as a hollow testament to the true nature of LRL, a religion of dubious merit.)
]First, let me preface my request (challenge if you prefer) of the LRL faithful with my own observations about your articles of faith.
Although the LRL pious among you may disagree, I believe the following passage speaks to the theory behind LRL:
"Thus the logical basis of Contagious Magic, like that of Homoeopathic Magic, is a mistaken association of ideas; its physical basis, if we may speak of such a thing, like the physical basis of Homoeopathic Magic, is a material medium of some sort which, like the ether of modern physics, is assumed to unite distant objects and to convey impressions from one to the other." - Sir James George Frazer in The Golden Bough (1922)
It is certainly true, that divining (the putative progenitor of LRL), like other forms of magic, is a very old practice. Curses, hexes, calling of demons, and even human sacrifice, also have a rich and long lived history. And all of these practices have been long held in high regard in certain quarters. I doubt that there are any readers of this post whose ancestors did not believe in the power of one or more of these practices, and there are still those today who give credence to these sorts of beliefs. For example, "mal de ojo" is a common belief among recent Hispanic immigrants to the U.S.,.
Those who have studied behavioral psychology will see the same mechanism at work in areas such as this, and specifically, in LRL believers, as that which has disrupted so many behavioral experiments - extraneous reinforcement. The pigeons are "dancing" so to speak.
Of course, those who sell LRL equipment would at least appear to be followers of another dogma, that of bank robber Willie Sutton, who explained that he robbed banks, "because that's where the money is".
So, I have a very simple request of the LRL believers out there - a "challenge" for those who prefer that more inflammatory didactic. Using something approximating correct grammar and spelling, and structured, rational logic, please give me a brief, coherent, and dispositive hypothesis for the function of LRL and your devices.
Specifically, you should explain what it is you are sensing, and how you are sensing it. This should include an explanation of the mechanism and/or circuitry of any devices you feel are a good example of a reliable and effective device. It is also asked that you offer an objective metric by which one can observe the phenomena you describe. You should be specific, accurate, and complete about what parts or components are needed, and what the intended function of the part is in this context. It should be possible for a reasonable person to reproduce the experiment with the information you provide.
And finally, you must be consistent with the laws of physics in your explanation. This is necessary to a rational discourse, and if you stray from it you are simply reinforcing my initial assertion that those of you who purchase and use LRL equipment are religiously devout practitioners of a magical belief. If you say that what the person is wearing, or the alignment of the moon can play havoc with the effectiveness of your device, then you must also offer a testable hypothesis to explain the effects that such factors have on the phenomena we are measuring with your devices.
If the nature of your "science" exceeds that of commonly known and accepted science, then it is also incumbent upon you you to meet the same standards of explanation, proof, and observability, as have been set forth for your explanation of LRL and any devices you wish to advocate for as viable LRL devices.
For those who are considering the purchase of an LRL device, if the seller cannot answer the questions I have raised, I suggest that you shop elsewhere - perhaps for one of the legitimate technologies. There are a number of good books on geophysics as applied to archaeology to help you get started, check Amazon and Barnes & Noble. I find magnetometry (gradiometry) and soil resistivity profiling to be very affordable and demonstrably effective tools for mapping large sites.
Not only are the above techniques well proven and thoroughly explained, but you can build the equipment yourself for a modest cost. No need to waste hard earned money while filling the purses of hucksters and con artists. There are web resources for building fluxgate magnetometers and an excellent book on building the (mostly obsolete, but still effective) proton precession magnetometer. Soil resistivity studies can be done with items you may already have on hand, but again, there are web resources for building the equipment. GPR, while useful, is beyond the average budget.
And if you are interested in legitimate tools for searching on a larger scale than the above devices will accomodate, I would suggest you read "Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology" by Parcak, "Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective" by (Various Authors), or the soon to be released "Satellite Remote Sensing: A New Tool for Archaeology (Remote Sensing and Digital Image Processing)" by Lasaponara. You may be able to find such imagery from publicly funded sources at a modest cost, or even at no cost.
For the LRL convicted, I have little doubt that the words of Omar Khayyám will apply:
"Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out of the same Door as in I went."
Respectfully, and without malice, until I receive a reply which is substantially compliant with the parameters I have set forth, and whose testable hypothesis withstands rigorous consideration, I have little choice but to class practitioners of LRL's liturgy, and keepers of its doubtful pneuma, as being one or more of the following: unschooled, analphabetic, misinformed, gullible, schizo-affective with a peculiar hyper-religiosity based on superstitious psuedo-scientific beliefs (Al Gore Disease). I list these as causalities, not as name calling, and I don't think LRL practitioners are lacking in intelligence, in general they are intelligent and inquisitive folks. I just think they are confused about reality by way of the aforementioned mechanisms. Others will undoubtedly take issue with these conclusions. No doubt any ensuing discourse will be instructive and enlightening.
I stand ready to be persuaded. Are you up to the challenge? (sorry, no money is in play
)(NB: Rants, invectives, taunting, and verbal vitriol are the refuge of those with no facts on their side, and no substantive point to be made. Such replies will likely go unanswered, at least by me. They will serve as a hollow testament to the true nature of LRL, a religion of dubious merit.)
