Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

[aarthrj3811]

Persons could be the observer and the one hiding the target. What's wrong with that?
Please explain what you mean?
Also, please answer: What do you think would be a fair test ?Persons could be the observer and the one hiding the target. What's wrong with that?

The word un-bias seems to fit both for the hider and the person administrating the test

What do you think would be a fair test?

Lets see now..How about 10 LRL users, 10 dowsers and 10 people who have never done any of these thing..Also a test set up as per the definition of a Double blind Test..Art

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[EE THr]

artie---

The definition of the term, "double blind," means that both sides are "blind" to what is going on.

In the case of the LRL tests, both the person operating the LRL, and the person administering the test, are "blind" to where the target is hidden. The way the administrator is kept in the "blind," is to have another person hide the target. Then the person who hid the target leaves the area before the administrator and the LRL operator enter the area.

The point being, that nobody in the visible test area knows where the target is, so there cannot be any subconscious cues given to indicate where the target is, or if the LRL operator is getting closer or farther from the target.

So the test is completely fair.

A manufacturer, or you, can use your best LRL operator. 10 tests like the above are done. You win if you find the target 7 times out of the 10 tests.

Lets see now..How about 10 LRL users, 10 dowsers and 10 people who have never done any of these thing..Also a test set up as per the definition of a Double blind Test..Art

Ask Carl if you can use 10 different operators, and different LRLs. He indicates in the rules that he is flexible about stuff like that. He would probably do that.

I don't know what the 10 dowsers would be there for, if the test is for LRLs, though. And I'm not sure what the other 10 would be for. Unless you want to prove that the LRLs work better than the dowsers, and the dowsers work better than the people who've never done either before.

I can't even guess whether Carl would be interested in that kind of test, as he has challenged LRLs, not dowsers. But maybe you can do a Randi test and a Carl test at the same time, or something.

Or course, if someone had a LRL that didn't work very well, if he brought his own dowsers, he could tell them to do poorly, just to make the LRL do better than them. But even if a test like that were done, I'm fairly certain it would still require a 70% hit ratio for the LRLs, so the dowsers being tested wouldn't help the LRL tests at all.

What would be your purpose of having the dowsers and beginner dowsers tested? I don't understand that part.


How would you have the test set up to meet your definition of "double-blind" test. How would it be different than what Carl has in his rules? I don't understand how it could comply with the double-blind standard any more than it already does.

What do you have in mind for your version of the test, step by step?

 

[aarthrj3811]

I have put the definitions of Double Blind Testing on here many times…the only ones that can not understand them are all skeptics..That is because you think that if someone fails your fake double blind test you will finally have some proof to post



Carl-NC
Posts: 1717
REPORT POST Nominate For Banner
Re: Finally an Answer
Reply To This Topic #42 Posted Jan 27, 2010, 04:29:58 PM Quote

Quote from: EddieR on Jan 27, 2010, 11:43:58 AM
I'm simply asking how the movement can be proven without a doubt to be ideomotor.

You can prove this with simple double-blind randomized tests.


aarthrj3811

Posts: 3644
Northern Nevada

REPORT POST Nominate For Banner 66.233.134.78
Re: Finally an Answer
Reply To This Topic #43 Posted Jan 27, 2010, 05:01:05 PM Quote Modify Remove

Quote
You can prove this with simple double-blind randomized tests.

So that tells us that there is no proof…Art




Carl-NC

Posts: 1717



Reply To This Topic #44 Posted Jan 27, 2010, 05:39:37 PM Quote

If you choose to ignore the results of the tests, or choose not to do the tests at all, then yes, there is no proof.

 

[EE THr]

artie---

The definitions you posted were related to pharmaceutical drug testing, where they use groups of hundreds of people. The "blind" parts are so the people taking the drugs don't know If they are taking a dose of the drug, or a dose of nothing. The "double" part is when the people handing out the drugs and observing the results, don't know either. That eliminates any bias in their reporting, and makes sure that the people who are redeiving the drugs aren't able to tell if it's real or not, by how the people handing out the drugs act.

The term "double-blind" does not refer to how many people are given the test drugs. It just means that nobody knows which is the real drug, and which is not. In other words, nobody present during the testing knows where the item (drug) is or isn't.

In the LRL testing, "blind" also refers to the fact that nobody knows where the item (target) is or isn't.

Just like in real treasure hunting, where nobody present would know where the item (treasure) is or isn't

Don't you think that's fair?

 

[aarthrj3811]

No—keep digging the hole deeper…If it is advertized as a Double Blind Test that is what it should be…What you people claim is called FRAUD..Art

 

[EE THr]

artie---

Well, then let's go back to your version of a fair test.

You suggested 10 LRL people, 10 dowsers, and 10 who have never dowsed.

Good so far.

How would the test run? I mean, what do these people do, and when. How are the targets hidden?

And, most importantly, how would your test be scored?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Well, then let's go back to your version of a fair test.
You suggested 10 LRL people, 10 dowsers, and 10 who have never dowsed.
Good so far.
How would the test run? I mean, what do these people do, and when. How are the targets hidden?
And, most importantly, how would your test be scored?

How would I know this ?..Would that not be up to the Scientists running the test ?
After all...Would he not be the one that wants to learn the truth ?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Good evening EE: You posted -->
1. There is no standard electronics explanation for the devices ever working.
2. The movement of the swivel pointer or rods is not powered by the devices.
3. Makers and owners of these devices refuse to take a double blind test.
4. The proponent's only rebuttal is that they find what they are looking for. This, however is not being contested by items #1-3. The statement of this list is that the electronics add-ons, to what is merely a dowsing device, are not necessary, and are only there to charge high prices. This makes their reports of finding stuff a total Straw Man type of fallacy, and thus void as rebuttals to this list.
*****************
On no. 1--> Why does there have to be a standard electronic explanation?

No. 2 --> so?? does it really matter if the human interface moves it or not?

No. 3 --> If you wish I will repost one of my previous statements.


--> Regarding validity of the dowsing tests -->

It's a dowser, ladies and gentlemen
Yep ? if you say so, i guess? Err comments about the following post?

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 Psychological as well a Physiological feeds all modulating each other.. Any of which can be altered easily by the present testing conditions.

Tropical Tramp

No. 4 --> Heck our gov't does this all of the time, why shouldn't lrl's have the same privilege?


Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[aarthrj3811]

Well said my friend..art

 

[EE THr]

RDT---

#1. The reason there must be a standard electronics explanation, is because the LRL makers try to use standard electronics to show how and why their devices work. The problem being that their explanations do not conform to standard scientific definitions. The subject of Electronics is basically a set of definitions, used to communicate. You can see this if you realize that "electronics" has always existed, but only fairly recently have people been defining the phenomenon and it's known parts, and talking about it, and configuring various gadgets, according to those definitions.

If someone made something which couldn't be explained using electronics definitions, and merely said, "I know it works, but I don't know how or why it works," that would be different. But using undefined terminology and unproven relationships between components of defined "electronics," is generally known as "BS."

People don't like being BSed. Especially when the LRL makers infer that their devices will work for everyone, when in reality, they actually won't.

#2. Yes, it absolutely does matter; in order to claim that their machines function in the way they infer, which is electronically.

#3. Carl's test is of the highest scientific standards. If the LRL makers wish to claim that their devices work by scientific standards (and the mainstay of science is standard terms and methods), then the proof of their claims must also use scientific standards.

If they want to act like the devices are dowsing enhancers, then they absolutely should say so, and simply drop their attempts at pseudo science mumbo jumbo, which appear to be for the sole purpose of making people believe that everyone can make them work.


In regards to government, I'm thinking of renaming "The List," to "The Predictable Pattern of Politicians." Has a nice ring to it, don't you think?

 

[EE THr]

artie---

Well, then let's go back to your version of a fair test.
You suggested 10 LRL people, 10 dowsers, and 10 who have never dowsed.
Good so far.
How would the test run? I mean, what do these people do, and when. How are the targets hidden?
And, most importantly, how would your test be scored?

How would I know this ?..Would that not be up to the Scientists running the test ?
After all...Would he not be the one that wants to learn the truth ?

1. If a person truly believes that the test is wrong, then he should say what is wrong with it, specifically. In view of your answers right here on this thread so far, it appears that you are unable to do that.

2. And also, if a person truly believes that the test is wrong, then he should say what a right test would be. And also in view of your answers right here on this thread so far, it appears that you are unable to do that, either.

Due to premises #1 and #2, just listed, which are proven to be true by your own statements here, it can only be concluded that you really don't believe that Carl's test is wrong.

Further, since you know Carl's test is OK, then the only reason you would have for not wanting to take the test and prove your claims, is that you know that you can't prove your claims.


If you think there is a fault in my logic, please let me know. (Insults won't count here. )

 

[aarthrj3811]

You are so busy making excuses that you fail to understand the messages…Only Skeptics will believe that Carl’s and Randi’s test are real Double blind Tests…I searched the internet to find how Double Blind test should be ran…It seems that no one uses this method except for the drug companies..We all know how some the drugs that pass the Double Blind testing can kill people…
We know that the Skeptics Bible has a whole chapter about Double Blind Test but is all bogus..Art

 

[Rudy(CA)]

You are so busy making excuses that you fail to understand the messages…Only Skeptics will believe that Carl’s and Randi’s test are real Double blind Tests…I searched the internet to find how Double Blind test should be ran…It seems that no one uses this method except for the drug companies..We all know how some the drugs that pass the Double Blind testing can kill people…
We know that the Skeptics Bible has a whole chapter about Double Blind Test but is all bogus..Art

Wow! It is so unusual to find an expert statistician in this forum.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~Rudy~

Wow! It is so unusual to find an expert statistician in this forum.

No expert statistician needed. Just common sense..

Re: Finally an Answer
Reply To This Topic #44 Posted Jan 27, 2010, 05:39:37 PM Quote

If you choose to ignore the results of the tests, or choose not to do the tests at all, then yes, there is no proof.

With LRLs and dowsing, "random chance" applies to randomized blind tests, not to field use. A randomized blind test does 2 things that a field test cannot do. First, it eliminates outside influences that might alter performance results, such as observable clues. Second, it provides a baseline from which to compare results, namely guessing.

Despite intentional attempts to mislead people, random chance doesn't apply to field use. You can't ask, "What are the odds of digging 10 holes in a park and recovering a gold coin?" There is no way to calculate that, because there is not enough information*. But in a randomized blind test, it is quite easy to calculate the odds. Depending on the design of the test those odds can vary, so it is not a fixed number that applies to every test, but it's not a "moving target" either.

 

[EE THr]

artie---

We all know how some the drugs that pass the Double Blind testing can kill people.

So you're afraid that you might somehow be injured by taking the test?

The statement you made actually means that it was too easy to pass the test.

You always resort to quoting about drug testing. I showed you how it is different. You quote you're own definitions of double-blind, as pertain only to drug testing, but you ignore the real definition, to which I provided you a link. I even explained to you, step-by-step, what was meant by "blind."

You are using inapplicable reasons to avoid taking the test. You just don't want to take the test, that's all.

You have said that an LRL user must be good at dowsing, to succeed. But then you say that LRLs don't depend on dowsing, but rather electronics. Thereby contradicting yourself.

The end result is that you can't prove that LRLs work locate targets electronically.

In my opinion, even Carl's test, if passed, still won't prove my contention, which is that LRLs don't help dowsing at all, by the addition of pseudo-electronic "circuits," and that the extra money charged is a waste and a ruse. Dowsers could do just as well by using welding rods or forked twigs.

If you want to claim otherwise, then show your proof.

It's as simple as that.

You are only trying to complicate the issue to hide the fact that you can't prove otherwise.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE THr~

In my opinion, even Carl's test, if passed, still won't prove my contention, which is that LRLs don't help dowsing at all, by the addition of pseudo-electronic "circuits," and that the extra money charged is a waste and a ruse. Dowsers could do just as well by using welding rods or forked twigs.

Thank you for admitting that Carl’s test will prove nothing..Art

 

[EE THr]

artie---

No, not nothing.

It will prove that LRLs don't work.

In fact, it is the proof that you are asking for on your other thread.

And it proves that you are trying to skirt the issue!

 

[aarthrj3811]

In my opinion, even Carl's test, if passed, still won't prove my contention, which is that LRLs don't help dowsing at all, by the addition of pseudo-electronic "circuits," and that the extra money charged is a waste and a ruse. Dowsers could do just as well by using welding rods or forked twigs.

No, not nothing.
It will prove that LRLs don't work.

Just answering your post…
Carls test will only prove if one person can or can not use his device..Art

 

[EE THr]

artie---

Carls test will only prove if one person can or can not use his device..Art

Wrong again!

As many people can take the test as want to. Therefore every LRL maker or user that exists can take the test. So it is capable of proving them all wrong. So, unless there is only one LRLr in existence, you must be wrong.

Let's see now---was that predictable of you? Yes, it was a number 22!

Congratulations again! And thank you for cooperating!

 

[aarthrj3811]

Wrong again!
As many people can take the test as want to. Therefore every LRL maker or user that exists can take the test. So it is capable of proving them all wrong. So, unless there is only one LRLr in existence, you must be wrong.
Let's see now---was that predictable of you? Yes, it was a number 22!
Congratulations again! And thank you for cooperating!

Thank you very much..You have determined the test results before any have been done..
http://www.noah.org/science/reason.html
•
• Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
• Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
• Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
• Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
• Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
• Quantify, wherever possible.
• If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
• "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
• Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?