why won't the doubter discuss this post #6 or #88 and ohers?

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

hi CARL, Yes to minimize, not "ELIMINATE" , hence all such tests are subject to question and intimate review, especially when the emotional/mental/physical aspects of the people are involved. In this type of case, it is impossible to do so. Even if all try to the best of their ability to be impartial or to succeed, it is still impossible, due to what you called "self delusional beliefs" triggered by perhaps the subconscience from a past experience or reading, or even in being subjected to a feeling of inferiority because of present surrounding and type or attitude of the testers. Hence any conclusions based upon pure statistics in this type of test, is at best a semi-educated guess.

For a dowsing test to be "VALID", the SAME dowser should be subjected to a large no. of tests in the same exact manner in many different conditions and under (A) all testers that believe in Dowsing , (B) All of those that do not, plus (C) an equally divided group. Only under these conditions can one draw a "reasonable" idea.

Anything less is completely unacceptable as true Scientific testing since we are dealing with a complex interwoven group of Psychlogical as well a Physiological feeds all modulating each other.. Any of which can be altered easily by the present testing conditions.

Incidentally, please do not continue to post the same past flawed results which in no way can be considered as truly scientific, unless you have set up a very low set of standards for yourself..

Tropical Tramp

[xupz]

For a dowsing test to be "VALID", the SAME dowser should be subjected to a large no. of tests in the same exact manner in many different conditions and under (A) all testers that believe in Dowsing , (B) All of those that do not, plus (C) an equally divided group. Only under these conditions can one draw a "reasonable" idea.

Anything less is completely unacceptable as true Scientific testing since we are dealing with a complex interwoven group of Psychlogical as well a Physiological feeds all modulating each other.. Any of which can be altered easily by the present testing conditions.

Incidentally, please do not continue to post the same past flawed results which in no way can be considered as truly scientific, unless you have set up a very low set of standards for yourself..

As Af already pointed out, by your own logic, not a single test any dowser on the forum has run himself is valid and therefore by your own logic haven't proven anything whatsoever. All their tests are in your words "completely unacceptable". Thanks for outing them. On top of that, you obviously don't know anything about statistics and what you can infer from them. Please do not continue to post pointless threads backed by nothing but self-contradiction. End of debate, end of thread. GG.

Oh yea, just a note on terminology, "reasonable" is a meaningless term, what you wanted to say was "significant". First hits in google to save you the time:

http://www.surveysystem.com/signif.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance
http://www.statpac.com/surveys/stati...gnificance.htm
http://davidmlane.com/hyperstat/A71266.html
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/statglos/sgsignif.htm

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

carlauthor=Carl-NC link=topic=28701.msg466040#msg466040 date=1168463099]
[[/quote]]You admit that you can not Dowse....So how can you know that the RODS behave the same

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Of course I can dowse! It's quite easy, just not very useful. - Carl


Tropicl Tramp

[ClonedSIM]

As Af already pointed out, by your own logic, not a single test any dowser on the forum has run himself is valid and therefore by your own logic haven't proven anything whatsoever.

Xupz beat me to it!

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

SNICKER SNICKER

carlauthor=Carl-NC link=topic=28701.msg466040#msg466040 date=1168463099]
[[/quote]]You admit that you can not Dowse....So how can you know that the RODS behave the same

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Of course I can dowse! It's quite easy, just not very useful. - Carl


Tropicl Tramp

[aarthrj3811]

As Af already pointed out, by your own logic, not a single test any dowser on the forum has run himself is valid and therefore by your own logic haven't proven anything whatsoever.

But af....We are not jumping up and down demanding that the Dowsers take some test that will prove nothing. I can't speak for anyone but myself. I test to learn more about my hobby and to make sure that when I post something it is what I can do. ...Art

[ClonedSIM]

As Af already pointed out, by your own logic, not a single test any dowser on the forum has run himself is valid and therefore by your own logic haven't proven anything whatsoever.

Xupz beat me to it!

You boys are a little slow on the uptake...aren't ya?



You are both correct....as nothing scientific or otherwise has been proven concerning dowsing....anywhere, that I can see?
I believe that is the crux of the problem Realde is addressing here.

Do you have any input to offer using his aforementioned methods?


Judy

As Af already pointed out, by your own logic, not a single test any dowser on the forum has run himself is valid and therefore by your own logic haven't proven anything whatsoever.

But af....We are not jumping up and down demanding that the Dowsers take some test that will prove nothing. I can't speak for anyone but myself. I test to learn more about my hobby and to make sure that when I post something it is what I can do. ...Art

I'm not trying to say who should or shouldn't take a test in regards to my comment re: realde's infamous post #6.

What I'm trying to point out is that no matter how many of you have taken pot-shots at Carl and Randi's testing methods, the self-tests you place so much stock in are just as worthless when you compare the procedures.

If you accept the results of your self-administered tests as fact, at least for yourselves, then why should Carl's test be held to a different standard?

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI AF

"What I'm trying to point out is that no matter how many of you have taken pot-shots at Carl and Randi's testing methods, the self-tests you place so much stock in are just as worthless when you compare the procedures",
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Thank you af , nice of you to confirm that jean, xu, randi, swr, and of course carl have been pedaling BS regarding the infallability of their horribly flawed tests..


Tropical Tramp

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

[quote author=SWR
Anyway of providing the results of the DB tests you have conducted, and how just exactly how were these DB tests conducted? Or, are these alleged DB tests just simple parlor-tricks and gimmicks for sales tactics.
*****************

Hmmm I seem to have forgotten on which page of the "sceptics bible" ths type of answer/remark is quoted. heck.however
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Operational definitions are inherently difficult — arguably, even impossible — to apply to mental entities, because these latter are generally understood to be accessible only to the individual who experiences them and are therefore not independently verifiable.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\


Tropical Tramp

[aarthrj3811]

What I'm trying to point out is that no matter how many of you have taken pot-shots at Carl and Randi's testing methods, the self-tests you place so much stock in are just as worthless when you compare the procedures.

Very good point af.....But the real facts are that I trust my wife to give me a fair and honest test. Randi admits that he is a Lair, Cheat and a dishonest person. So why should I trust him to give a honest test. His test procedures clearly show that all he is doing is protecting his ruputation...Art

[xupz]

I don't know why people are bothering to argue about the mental aspects of dowsing. I only care if the results are significant, not HOW they dowsed. So essentially you're saying that because the mental aspects of dowsing are not independent of the results in such a way that a dowser can't be tested, then what's the point of any of this?

End result: Skeptics will never believe a dowser, EVER, and a dowser will never pass a single dowsing test. Stalemate.

[Jean310]

What I'm trying to point out is that no matter how many of you have taken pot-shots at Carl and Randi's testing methods, the self-tests you place so much stock in are just as worthless when you compare the procedures. af1733

WRONG! I have much, much more Dowsing field test experience than Carl, and many of the DB tests I have conducted on participants are far superior in correctly, and accurately evaluating the merits of Dowsing, or locating Devices, than Carl, or Randi have ever shown.

Anyway of providing the results of the DB tests you have conducted, and how just exactly how were these DB tests conducted? Or, are these alleged DB tests just simple parlor-tricks and gimmicks for sales tactics.

Really excellent suggestion, SWR. How about it, Dell? Carl has a clear example of a d-b test outlined on his website. Where are the details, test methods, participants and results from your claimed d-b tests? I would like to learn more about these d-b tests of yours.

Jean

[Carl-NC]

Really excellent suggestion, SWR. How about it, Dell? Carl has a clear example of a d-b test outlined on his website. Where are the details, test methods, participants and results from your claimed d-b tests? I would like to learn more about these d-b tests of yours.

This has already been asked of Dell, and he has refused to discuss these alleged "hundreds" of "double-blind tests" that he's conducted. You are free to form your own opinion as to the veracity of this claim.

- Carl

[Carl-NC]

*Sigh* I suppose my first reply was either unclear or rejected, so let's try this again...

Since my reply to the first paragraph was, "I have no idea what you are trying to say," I'll embed comments in blue.

hi CARL, Yes to minimize, not "ELIMINATE" <Minimize/eliminate what?>, hence all such tests are subject to question and intimate review, especially when the emotional/mental/physical aspects of the people are involved. In this type of case <What type of case?>, it is impossible to do so. <To do what?> Even if all <All what?> try to the best of their ability to be impartial or to succeed, it <what?> is still impossible, due to what you called "self delusional beliefs" triggered by perhaps the subconscience from a past experience or reading, or even in being subjected to a feeling of inferiority because of present surrounding and type or attitude of the testers. <What? huh? what?> Hence any conclusions based upon pure statistics in this type of test, is at best a semi-educated guess.

I maintain that I have no idea what you are trying to say. Try posting a complete, coherent statement and we can proceed.

For a dowsing test to be "VALID", the SAME dowser should be subjected to a large no. of tests in the same exact manner in many different conditions and under (A) all testers that believe in Dowsing , (B) All of those that do not, plus (C) an equally divided group. Only under these conditions can one draw a "reasonable" idea.

Absolutely false. A dowser need only be tested for the exact claim he makes, under the exact conditions that he requires. If the required conditions include the total absense of skeptics, then that's what should be done. If the dowser has no concern about skeptics, or the phase of the moon, or the color of the sky, then these elements need not be part of the controls.

Anything less is completely unacceptable as true Scientific testing since we are dealing with a complex interwoven group of Psychlogical as well a Physiological feeds all modulating each other.. Any of which can be altered easily by the present testing conditions.

That's called an "excuse" for dowsers who fail in tests that are designed exactly as the dowsers request. Not only that, but it appears to be your excuse for other dowsers who either have failed in testing, or whom you presume will fail, even before any test takes place. You seem to have a very low regard for dowsing.

There is, of course, an alternative explanation for the recurring failures of dowsing in tests: dowsing does not work the way dowsers believe dowsing works. Much simpler than all those ad hoc excuses and denials of science.

Incidentally, please do not continue to post the same past flawed results which in no way can be considered as truly scientific, unless you have set up a very low set of standards for yourself..

What "results" are you talking about? Please be specific.

- Carl

[aarthrj3811]

This has already been asked of Dell, and he has refused to discuss these alleged "hundreds" of "double-blind tests" that he's conducted. You are free to form your own opinion as to the veracity of this claim.

Gee..I don't remember that disscussion

Absolutely false. A dowser need only be tested for the exact claim he makes, under the exact conditions that he requires. If the required conditions include the total absense of skeptics, then that's what should be done. If the dowser has no concern about skeptics, or the phase of the moon, or the color of the sky, then these elements need not be part of the controls.

I have heard that before

That's called an "excuse" for dowsers who fail in tests that are designed exactly as the dowsers request. Not only that, but it appears to be your excuse for other dowsers who either have failed in testing, or whom you presume will fail, even before any test takes place. You seem to have a very low regard for dowsing.

Please give me some prove of these so caled excuses were ever made. In fact ....Please give us some poof that any Dowser has failed a test except for JD...Art

[aarthrj3811]

So...your idea of a DB (double-blind) test is inviting someone to meet you at a predetermined location, and watch you dig up a unknown buried treasure. yikes !!

Being as none of the locations were ever excavated, you failed your own test (publicity gimmicks), eh?

Lets see SWR..Is this 6 or 7 times that Dell has invited you on a field trip. Every time you have some smart answer for him. What will your EXCUSE be next time....Art

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

=SWR link=] what I'm trying to point out is that no matter how many of you have taken pot-shots at Carl and Randi's testing methods, the self-tests you place so much stock in - are just as worthless - when you compare the procedures.

Anyway of providing the results of the DB tests you have conducted, and how just exactly how were these DB tests conducted? Or, are these alleged DB tests just simple parlor-tricks and gimmicks for sales tactics
***********************

ho hum Regardles, they are just as true as the srupid tests that you have been advocating sigh

hmm, I must look at the next page of the scepric's bible.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
"Operational definitions are inherently difficult — arguably, even impossible — to apply to mental entities, because these latter are generally understood to be accessible only to the individual who experiences them and are therefore not independently verifiable."
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Of course I can dowse! It's quite easy, just not very useful. - Carl

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ho hum

Tropical Tramp

[aarthrj3811]

Golly gee, Art...how many tons of gold ya think ole Dell has ever excavated from those publicity gimmicks, cleverly disguised as field trips?

If you guess zero (0), then you are correct. If you guessed any digit after zero (0) guess again

Gee ....All the experts here have told us that a blind man will find treasure beween 10% and 60% of the time. I can see no reason why he would not have tripped on a rock and did a face plant into at least one treasure. So I think your numbere zero () must be wrong...Art

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

=xupz link= the mental aspects of dowsing are not independent of the results in such a way that a dowser can't be tested, then what's the point of any of this?
*******************
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
"Operational definitions are inherently difficult — arguably, even impossible — to apply to mental entities, because these latter are generally understood to be accessible only to the individual who experiences them and are therefore not independently verifiable."
=================
Of course I can dowse! It's quite easy, just not very useful. - Carl
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
nd result: Skeptics will never believe a dowser, EVER, and a dowser will never pass a single dowsing test. Stalemate.
*****************
Yawn

Tropical Tramp

[Carl-NC]

Gee..I don't remember that disscussion

Yup. That's a recurring theme with you, eh?

Please give me some prove of these so caled excuses were ever made.

I was replying to the excuse RT had posted, so if you want proof, read his post.

In fact ....Please give us some poof that any Dowser has failed a test except for JD.

Betz had over 500 dowsers who failed. Is that enough, or did you want more?

- Carl