$1,000,000 for anyone who can dowse.

[aarthrj3811]

No Carl...Your thing is not a double blind test...Where do you think they get the word Double...You have no groups. You have no base line to judge any results...You have a Blind test that has no answers for anyone.

You e-mailed me a month before Bob's demonstration and said you had a contract with Bob. Now you say that Bob is backing out. Bob was there at the appointed time. You seem to think that you can push these mfg. around. I saw how rude the skeptics are and how they will do anything to disrupt a demonstration. It's funny that after the skeptics came out of hiding and went away all the Dowsing rods would work again. Randi is a Magician...His scam test has no rules. I also like these internet dictionaries...you no the ones that you can change the difinition if you want to...

You say you want prove but provide none. When a myth is shared by small numbers of people, it becomes a reality to them.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Carl-NC]

No Carl...Your thing is not a double blind test...Where do you think they get the word Double...You have no groups. You have no base line to judge any results...You have a Blind test that has no answers for anyone.

A DB test does not necessarily require groups. Some things can be tested against known probabilities, including dowsing. Drug testing cannot be tested against probabilities, so control groups are required. Do you know why that is? It's actually pretty obvious, once you think about it.

You e-mailed me a month before Bob's demonstration and said you had a contract with Bob. Now you say that Bob is backing out. Bob was there at the appointed time.

I'm not going to make travel arrangements until I have a fully agreed upon, and signed, contract. I didn't have that in time to make Bob's "demonstration." I've been trying to set a date since then, but no reply.

Randi is a Magician...His scam test has no rules.

Why don't you just give it a try? What harm will it do you? YOU can make the rules, and see if he accepts.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Some things can be tested against known probabilities.

Thats where you are fooling your self... You assume all dowsing to be Ideomotor Response. Then you assume that Ideomotor Response is chance guessing. Chance guessing seems to be related to some one flipping a coin which some how comes out as 50 %. Where do you think your going to find known probabilities for Dowsing. I see reports of so called facts but we all know they are wrong

 

[Captain Trips]

Okay, let's get something clear about double-blind testing, as there is great misunderstanding about it. It does NOT mean that there are two test groups, one positive and the other placebo. It DOES mean that the person adminstering the test and the person being tested are both "blind" as to the test object's validity. In other words, it means that, although someone does know what the status of the test object is, no body who is around during the testing knows the status of the test object.

"Double Blind" in other words means that both sides in the test are blinded. Tester and testee don't know the status of the test object.

By this, a "one-in-ten paper bags" test can be "double blind" if the person observing the dowser is just as much in the dark as to which bag the test object is in as is the dowser. No real need for a second group of ten bags without any test object.

 

[Captain Trips]

Carl and AF....Randi's and Carls Tests are just that...TEST,...Randi does not tell us how his test is ran ..just that it is fair and Scientific...

You know, I really think you should thoroughly read the JREF challenge on Randi's site before you make such blanket statements. I don't know about Carl's, but Randi's challenge is just that -- a CHALLENGE, not a TEST!

As to how his CHALLENGE is run, well, he CAN'T tell you how it's run. It is different for every challenger. As such, it is never the same, and therefore can not by definition be spelled out in advance. You want to take the challenge, you specify the "testing" procedure YOURSELF. IF it meets the requirements of the CHALLENGE, then they provide you the environment to perform your procedure. (At your own expense, they specify that also.) If your procedure does not meet the requirements, they WILL work with you to develop mutually acceptable procedures. To argue against the challenge on the basis that they don't tell you what they want you to do is, at the very least, very disingenuous of you.

Here's the web page of the challenge application. http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html Read it for yourself. Please. If you are going to be arguing against it, at least know what it is you are arguing against.

And, before you start posting further questions about the challenge, read the faq: http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html It will answer most questions you may have about it. In particular, I suggest you pay careful attention to FAQ 4.5, and the answer they give. It specifically states WHY there is no "standard test" for any application, even specifically referring to dowsing.

 

[Carl-NC]

Art,

It doesn't matter whether I assume dowsing to be ideomotor or not. For the test, all that matters is whether dowsing works, regardless of the mechanism. Either it works, or it doesn't. If it works, then we can study the mechanism by which it works. If it doesn't work, then we can study the mechanism by which dowsers are being deceived.

Chance guessing has nothing to do, per se, with flipping a coin, or 50% odds. Predicting the flip of a coin is just ONE example of chance guessing, and happens to have odds of 50% per flip. Predicting a die roll is another example of chance guessing, where each event has odds of 1-in-6. Guessing a card from a well-shuffled deck has odds of 1-in-52. PowerBall has odds very close to zero (1-in-146,000,000 right now, or 0.0000007%).

Do you understand now that the probabilities associated with guessing depend on how the experiment is set up? This is a very mature branch of mathematics, taught in every university on Earth, but you are welcomed to try and prove it all wrong.

If I therefore place a gold bar (secretly) under one of two paper plates and ask you to tell me which one, you have a 50% chance of being right just by guessing, each time we do this. Does that make sense?

If we keep doing this same experiment, where I hide the gold bar and you guess the location, then sometimes you'll guess right, and sometimes you'll guess wrong. Over the long run, you'll get about half right, and about half wrong. Sometimes you'll get a run of several right answers in a row*, and sometimes you'll get a run of several wrong answers in a row. Does that make sense?

Now bring in a pair of dowsing rods. We re-do the whole thing, but this time you get to use dowsing rods. Can you now locate the gold bar with better results than guessing? If your results with the dowsing rods end up the same as guessing, then dowsing doesn't appear to be very useful.

As I said, statistics is very mature, and for these simple shell-game tests we don't have to run the guessing part of the test to verify that statistics works. I can calculate the gaussian distribution for any such test, and tell you exactly what the odds are for any level of success (lotteries and casinos can do this, too). Now if you chose NOT to believe mathematics, then we can certainly run the guessing portion for your own satisfaction. Randi would, too, I'm sure. In fact, if several observers are standing around, you could run the guessing part WHILE you are dowsing.

You need to understand, though, that even guessing has some normal variation in the distribution. If, ferinstance, we ran our little 2-plate guessing experiment 20 times, you might guess correctly 10 times, or 9 times, or even 11 times. In fact, for 20 runs with just 2 plates, 11 correct guesses has about the same odds (16%) as does 10 correct guesses (17.6%). So 11-of-20 correct guesses is not a very meaningful "success".

So when we compare dowsing to guessing, we cannot set the threshold of what we consider "successful dowsing" at exactly the mean for chance guessing, i.e., 10-of-20 in this example. That's because guessing 1 or 2 over the mean would not be an unusual outcome. That's why Dell said he would like to make anything over the mean to be the threshold for dowsing success... it's almost certain to occur, even when guessing!

So we need to set the threshold of success somewhat higher to differentiate successful dowsing with guessing. How much higher depends on how many tests you're willing to run, and it also depends on how many target locations you use. Does all that make sense?

Now, I know you've read a definition for "double-blind" that talks about "groups". Yes, some DB tests have people who are in a "test" group, and some who are in a "control" group. But in shell-game-type tests, the "shells" are actually the groups. That is, if I hide a gold bar under 1-of-2 paper plates, then the plate with the gold bar under it is the "test group" and the empty plate is the "control group."

You, as the subject, don't know which group is which. That's the "blind" part of the experiment. Everyone who is watching you try to guess (or dowse) the gold target, including the proctor for the test, also does not know the gold bar's location. That's the "double blind" part of the experiment. The guy who actually hid the bar, left the scene without making contact with anyone else involved. This is analogous to drug testing, where some anonymous person randomizes the drug and the placebo in some dark room, so when the doctor hands the drug to the test subject, even he doesn't know whether it's the drug or the placebo.

Speaking of drug testing, do you understand why it has a test group and a control group, and why one group is compared to the other? It's because the placebo effect does not follow probabilities. That is, there is no mathematical predictability for how a placebo will affect a certain ailment. Heart disease and cancer, ferinstance, have almost no response to a placebo. But headaches and joint pains do. Since there is so much variation in the placebo effect, and no way to predict it, drugs have to be tested this way. When the test is over, and the results compared, the drug company hopes their new drug is significantly better than the placebo, and some are willing to cheat to make sure.

So, once again, I'll say that my test is double-blind, and makes a fair comparison of dowsing to the well-known statistical results of guessing. I welcome you to take my test procedure, as well as this explanation, to a university statistics professor and ask his opinion. I also continue to urge you to give Randi a shot.

- Carl

*Getting several right answers in a row is what often fools people into thinking they have a "gift".

 

[Rich NY]

How about a test where you take a 2 acre field and have someone hide 10 targets on it. Have 2 people search it at separate times. One would use dowsing rods or a lrl. The other person would chance guess it. Repeat this 10 or 20 times. Record each parties targets that they recover. At the end of the test if both parties recover about the same amount of targets, then dowsing is no better than chance guessing. On the other hand if the dowser recovers quite a few more targets, then dowsing works better than chance guessing.

 

[oldman]

Rich NY, I knew it would be a NY'er to come up with a brilliant Idea! Bill Piercer

 

[ClonedSIM]

How about a test where you take a 2 acre field and have someone hide 10 targets on it. Have 2 people search it at separate times. One would use dowsing rods or a lrl. The other person would chance guess it. Repeat this 10 or 20 times. Record each parties targets that they recover. At the end of the test if both parties recover about the same amount of targets, then dowsing is no better than chance guessing. On the other hand if the dowser recovers quite a few more targets, then dowsing works better than chance guessing.

Great idea, Rich! Bravo!

Did you read this, Art? Double-blind, eh?
You might want to pull up your Wikipedia again and check the differences between performing an experiment with a "control" group and performing a "double-blind" experiment.

And Dell, the only person attempting the challenge would be the dowser or LRL user. The guesser would only be present to establish the base-line to judge the results. The only person competing for the challenge cash would be the dowser.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Ok..A lot these experiments sound good. This one would would take a lot of time. One guy locates half of his targets. I find all of mine and get the $25,000. Now what did I prove? I proved that I could locate all the targets that day. Did I prove I didn't let Ideomoor Response find the target. No..Did I prove that I wasn't Lucky that day? No. Did I prove that dowsing works? Yes that day it work perfect. The next day we would be talking about the same things. No winners and no lossers so why do it...Art

 

[jeff of pa]

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,45486.msg325024.html#new

 

[ClonedSIM]

Happy Birthday, Dell!!

 

[ClonedSIM]

Ok..A lot these experiments sound good. This one would would take a lot of time. One guy locates half of his targets. I find all of mine and get the $25,000. Now what did I prove? I proved that I could locate all the targets that day. Did I prove I didn't let Ideomoor Response find the target. No..Did I prove that I wasn't Lucky that day? No. Did I prove that dowsing works? Yes that day it work perfect. The next day we would be talking about the same things. No winners and no lossers so why do it...Art

So, if I understand right, dowsing is twice as good as guessing, but you still wouldn't waste your time to win $25,000? And...dowsing is mostly luck and a little guessing and very dependant on the day of the week?

If my response sounds odd to you, it's because you're posting nonsense, Art. This test follows every guideline you've ever spewed out, which is evident by the fact you're not arguing the validity of it, but you still manage to come up with an excuse why it won't work.

The challenge isn't to prove that you can locate all the targets that day. It's to see if dowsing or using an LRL is any better than guessing. If you locate every target then you have proven that, indeed, dowsing is far superior to guessing, and then we can continue on to see why this is. The further research is immaterial to this challenge, however, as the challenge is just the first step in the process.

Just answer this. Why are you so unwilling to compete in a challenge that is tailored to the numerous demands and complaints you've made? Are you afraid of the results?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Just answer this. Why are you so unwilling to compete in a challenge that is tailored to the numerous demands and complaints you've made? Are you afraid of the results?

If the word "no" is a demand or a complaint I am guilty but if it just plain means "NO" then you are wrong again. I will say this again....I will not do any experiment, test etc. dreamed up by INTERNET SCIENTIFIC ELECTRONIC EXPERTS as it will do NOTHING to settle questions that the skeptics have. The Dowsers have no problem answering questions. But alas....just like the quote above...Twist and spin

I am in the fourth round of an experiment with batteries and the batteries are winning. By the way Trips and AF...You guys don't understand what your reading or your search engine is weak.

The only thing that the sub-conscious mind knows is what comes from instinct and what it is taught...

I forgot who said that but he was a famous SCIENTIST ....Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

Just answer this. Why are you so unwilling to compete in a challenge that is tailored to the numerous demands and complaints you've made? Are you afraid of the results?

If the word "no" is a demand or a complaint I am guilty but if it just plain means "NO" then you are wrong again. I will say this again....I will not do any experiment, test etc. dreamed up by INTERNET SCIENTIFIC ELECTRONIC EXPERTS as it will do NOTHING to settle questions that the skeptics have. The Dowsers have no problem answering questions. But alas....just like the quote above...Twist and spin

My gosh, Art! Are you aware that you created posts in this thread prior to today? Are aware that you argued harshly that since Dell and Randi's tests weren't "double-blind" that they were unscientific and thus posessing no value? Are you aware that when a challenge was created that fit every one of your remarks that you started to back-pedal yet again? There's been no "twist or spin" here, Art. Just you, refusing to answer questions and instead supplying excuses.

By the way Trips and AF...You guys don't understand what your reading or your search engine is weak.

This doesn't make sense, Art. Try again. If you're going to report that someone is incorrect about something, at least try to identify the incorrect statement and then offer your own version of a "corrected" statement.

The only thing that the sub-conscious mind knows is what comes from instinct and what it is taught...

I forgot who said that but he was a famous SCIENTIST ....Art

This doesn't even apply to the current discussion, Art.

Oh, and by the way...

The Dowsers have no problem answering questions.

then

Just answer this. Why are you so unwilling to compete in a challenge that is tailored to the numerous demands and complaints you've made? Are you afraid of the results?

especially when you consider that it's been stated several times what the results of this test would be uesd for?

 

[Rich NY]

I would not take the test either. I've taken tests on the Internet to test for PK. If I just run a practice run I do fine. Once I enter my e-mail to have my tests recorded my score drops considerably. I think being under pressure and the demands that are put on you can have an impact on your results. Being that the human body is part is part of the equation it is hard to get around that. I think that is why is is hard to test people for these kind of things.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Some people are just like that, getting nervous when they see the word "TEST" on a page. I went to college with a girl that had her tests prearranged so that the word TEST or FINAL appeared nowhere on the sheet. And Sandstead has mentioned that as well.

But that's not Art's problem. He's just too much darn better than the rest of us to show off his skills and take home some cash.

 

[Rich NY]

It's just not your thinking thats effected. I think It can also affect your whole nervous system and cause blockages. I have also found out the more relaxed you are the more successful you will be. You just have to let things happen, you can't force things.

 

[ClonedSIM]

It's just not your thinking thats effected. I think It can also affect your whole nervous system and cause blockages. I have also found out the more relaxed you are the more successful you will be. You just have to let things happen, you can't force things.

Right, I can give you that one. I still think you've posted one of the best challenge opportunities I've ever seen.

 

[aarthrj3811]

But that's not Art's problem. He's just too much darn better than the rest of us to show off his skills and take home some cash.

Keep on twisting and spinning. In the time you have spent writting these post you could have learned to Dowse. I was thinking of going to Iowa to look for gold in sunken Spanish Gallions. Hows the weather in Iowa? Art