How many coins will I find?

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

BEALE: HI, I agree there is way too much of that confusing the issue, unfortunately many of them do believe that they can dowse and so take tests which they will fail giving the anti's fuel. But this in itself, does not dismiss dowsing, only that the ones that took the test failed, and that the testers failed also in attracting bonefide Dowsers by attitudes such as has been shown in here.etc... Many dowers, like my friend in Alaska, flatly refuse to be tested, they know that they can pass test, but just are not interested.

However the fact remains that he DID dowse photos and maps correctly. Explain please?

Tropical Tramp

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Mike(Mont)]

Art there is no way of knowing for sure. It could be any number from zero to ten. Probablity is an inexact science. You can calculate the expected outcome and in the long run (run the test a thousand times) you should get an idea of the likely outcomes, but that's all. For example, you won't hit ten as many times as you hit zero.

I read a report someone said that some skeptics score consistently lower than the expected odds. In other words they were negative dowsing. Many people say that they get an unpleasant feeling when they are on the target. Al Rossmiller talked about a guy who threw up and said "This is the spot." For a few days after I take a sea salt and baking soda bath I can feel some electrical current running across my chest from left to right when I'm on target.

 

[Jean310]

Probablity[sic] is an inexact science.

What do you base that statement on?

.....Probability is the extent to which something is likely to happen or be the case. Probability theory is used extensively in areas such as statistics, mathematics, science, philosophy to draw conclusions about the likelihood of potential events and the underlying mechanics of complex systems. .....It can reasonably be said that the discovery of rigorous methods to assess and combine probability assessments has had a profound effect on modern society. A good example is the application of game theory, itself based strictly on probability, to the Cold War and the mutual assured destruction doctrine. Accordingly, it may be of some importance to most citizens to understand how odds and probability assessments are made, and how they contribute to reputations and to decisions, especially in a democracy.

Another significant application of probability theory in everyday life is reliability. Many consumer products, such as automobiles and consumer electronics, utilize reliability theory in the design of the product in order to reduce the probability of failure. The probability of failure is also closely associated with the product's warranty. (_ Wikipedia)

Possible limitations to the application and usefulness of probability theory, might be when using it to evaluate situations having an infinite number of possible outcomes. With this in mind, it becomes the job of those applying probability and statistics to only address those areas where finite outcomes are the case. Then, it becomes a very useful tool, and really has no substitute.

Jean

 

[diggummup]

Hey SWR....All I want is an honest answer....Out of thirty five answers I have recieve 1 !/2 honest answers. I did my home work and I know the anwer and we don't need the subject changed. If they want to talk about something else they can start another thread....Art

Who's the half,me or Realde? Just wondering,since my answer was completely honest and you have NEVER seen me in this part of the forum before?

 

[xupz]

Art my answer is that you will find zero. You have a 9 to 1 odds running against you on each pass of your ten passes. So my answer is zero.

Would agree with Beale. If the test is actually conducted according to strict double-blind controls, and it is conducted more than once, on the average you will find zero. Most home-made d-b tests do not really conform to strict d-b controls, and if yours falls in this category, then you might find any number of targets greater than zero.

Jean

And you'd be wrong. The shorthand for expectation is simply using the equation for mu:

mu = np
mu = 10*.10
mu = 1

NOT zero. Art's answer is 1, end of debate.

 

[Mike(Mont)]

Why is probability and inexact science? Because probability cannot predict the outcome, only the likely outcome. No matter what the odds say there is always a chance of each outcome. It might occur on the first time or the ten-billionth time or never in fifteen septillion times. If you run a test an infinite number of times there's no guarantee the outcome will match the odds. In the long run it will be close, in the short there's just no telling what will happen. That's why these skeptic contests cannot rely on astronomically high odds alone. They still say the final decision is up to their panel of judges. That's the catch-all clause.

 

[xupz]

Sorry, your math does not hold true. The answer is zero through ten each time--------it's based on random guessing. No answer is absolute. So we are all RIGHT.

Sorry, you're wrong. It's fact. The test is a binomial distribution. The expected value for mu (the average) is mu=np.

If Y~Binomial(n,p)

Then E(Y) = np = 10*.10.

How amusing that you think you're right and don't back it up with anything. Go learn some basic discrete probability distributions and how to apply expectation before you make a claim that my math is wrong. XD.

http://www.mathsrevision.net/alevel/pages.php?page=72

Feel free to look up any math that would back your claim of zero. I mean you might as well ignore the FACT that the maximum probability occurs at 1. Claiming zero is just absolutely ridiculous no matter how you slice iit gnoring all math and just looking at the distribution.

 

[xupz]

Why is probability and inexact science? Because probability cannot predict the outcome, only the likely outcome. No matter what the odds say there is always a chance of each outcome. It might occur on the first time or the ten-billionth time or never in fifteen septillion times. If you run a test an infinite number of times there's no guarantee the outcome will match the odds. In the long run it will be close, in the short there's just no telling what will happen. That's why these skeptic contests cannot rely on astronomically high odds alone. They still say the final decision is up to their panel of judges. That's the catch-all clause.

Sure it won't be exact for a single instance. The fact is a dowser would still have to have it occur at that exact moment for it to matter. The odds of him dowsing say 5 or 6 is still so stacked against him that it probably WON'T happen in that instance.

The thing is that probabilities, especially when dealing with means and such, are asymptotic. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant, go write a numerical program and watch the average approach the expected value very quickly. You run this for infinity and it will be the expected value. Trying to debunk centuries of probability theory with that logic is just laughable. I'm sure Mike's opinion on it is worth more than the thousands of math and stats geniuses who have come up with the theory and proofs. I won't hold my breath though.

Oh yea, and beale, let me know when you know you're wrong.

 

[diggummup]

Answer this mathemeticians,how many off-topic posts does it take to hijack a thread? Hmmm? I don't remember anyone asking for any of this crap!

All I want is an honest answer....Out of thirty five answers I have recieve 1 !/2 honest answers. I did my home work and I know the anwer and we don't need the subject changed. If they want to talk about something else they can start another thread....Art

Agreed!

 

[diggummup]

The only question here is HOW MANY COINS WILL I FIND?

Answer this mathemeticians,how many off-topic posts does it take to hijack a thread? Hmmm? I don't remember anyone asking for any of this crap!

If they want to talk about something else they can start another thread....Art

Ummm,er....isn't the question based on math? "How many" usually does
[/quote]
Refresh your memory.With an emphasis on "only" in the original question.The question refers to a specific number,not the mathematical formulas and/or probabilities to get to that number.I understand that you do not believe in dowsing,neither do I,but this guy deserves respect just as you and I would expect it.Especially in this part of the forum,where it is most applicable.Instead you continue to be facetious and childlike.I applaude your efforts Jim,belittling as they are.Unfortunately,your true colors are shown throughout this forum.Good day.

 

[Jean310]

Why is probability and inexact science? Because probability cannot predict the outcome, only the likely outcome.

.....you are free to label probability and its application, by any name you choose. However, as a tool for predicting the expected outcome of a process (test) having a finite number of possible outcomes; it will remain in first place to any other method you can think of. If you have another tool that is better, now would be a good time to reveal it to the world ~before the stock market opens in 2007.

 

[Mike(Mont)]

Xups you spin like a skeptic. You asked me why probability is not an exact science and I told you. This isn't my original idea, it is what I was taught. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend you did not understand what I said. Maybe if I phrase it differently: Just because probability says an event is likely or unlikely to occur does not mean it is a certainty, otherwise they'd call it "Certainty" instead of "Probability". That's how insurance companies operate, they know they will lose a few, and why the skeptics put their catch-all clause attached to their prize. It's just not certain what the outcome will be. That's why they call it an inexact science. Some insurance companies go broke. The skeptics, on the other hand, are not regulated. They don't have to pay unless they want to.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey JD....I will post my results when I think the time is right. I am enjoying all the conversations and want to see how many know what they are talking about...Art

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

=SWR link=]
I and as the offending post to Realde has been removed...

*****************
sheesh an offending post to me?? how could you swr.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

IAlmost everytime Jose champions a cause, it gets spun-off into a "I did this and I did that" soap opera.
***********

Hey swr, don't knock it, if it was good enough for JESUS to illustrate HIS points. I can do worse, It is called Parables ---found under PARAB--- "The use of existing truths to illustrate another truth".

Tropical Tramp

 

[ClonedSIM]

If it's done correctly, double-blind, ect, I think you'd be lucky to get one in ten.

But since I don't really trust you to pull off an honest test on your own, I'm not holding my breath.

(Please note I did not say you were dishonest, I simply believe any test you perform on yourself will not follow any type of protocol and will provide skewed results, so the test itself is the dishonest one.)

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

[]
author=JudyH Tom-a-to....To-mah-to
cheap Shot.....or a truth that hits too close to home??
************

Statistically it is the truth B & B

Tropical Tramp

]

 

[aarthrj3811]

Results of my test at a street fair and in a high school parking lot. The test had ten cups with a silver dollar under one of them. 100 people were ask to Dowse the location of the coin using a set of dowsing rods. 8 people out of the 100 found the coin. 20% of the people had heard about Dowsing. 7% had saw someone else Dowse. Out of the 8 people that located the coin 5 of them were people that had saw someone Dowse before...I don't know what all this means but if we had more results from random tests of people there would be some real numbers to work with....Art

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Jean:
. However, as a tool for predicting the expected outcome of a process (test) having a "finite" number of possible outcomes;
**********

sheehs how can you have a finite no. of possibilities when you are dealing with an infinite no of controlling factors, anyone one of which can effect the results unless you merely go for Boolean math as applied to electronics, on or off - yes or no.

It works or it doesn't, however this is not what statistics show. it only shows a possible probability, hence in no way does it show a finite factor.

Incidentally how is your stock portfolio doing, obviously you are now rich as Xu and ap are.

Tropical Tramp

 

[xupz]

Xups you spin like a skeptic. You asked me why probability is not an exact science and I told you. This isn't my original idea, it is what I was taught. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend you did not understand what I said. Maybe if I phrase it differently: Just because probability says an event is likely or unlikely to occur does not mean it is a certainty, otherwise they'd call it "Certainty" instead of "Probability". That's how insurance companies operate, they know they will lose a few, and why the skeptics put their catch-all clause attached to their prize. It's just not certain what the outcome will be. That's why they call it an inexact science. Some insurance companies go broke. The skeptics, on the other hand, are not regulated. They don't have to pay unless they want to.

Sorry Mike, I spin like a statistician because well, I'm a statistician, so I know damn well what I'm talking about. I don't know what your background is, but I live and breathe statistics every single day and get paid to do it.

Taught at what level? Intro to prob stats or some other low level intro stats course? You should have taken a reading course because I already stated it may not be accurate on a single instince.

Sure it won't be exact for a single instance. The fact is a dowser would still have to have it occur at that exact moment for it to matter. The odds of him dowsing say 5 or 6 is still so stacked against him that it probably WON'T happen in that instance.

The thing is that probabilities, especially when dealing with means and such, are asymptotic. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant, go write a numerical program and watch the average approach the expected value very quickly. You run this for infinity and it will be the expected value. Trying to debunk centuries of probability theory with that logic is just laughable. I'm sure Mike's opinion on it is worth more than the thousands of math and stats geniuses who have come up with the theory and proofs. I won't hold my breath though. Wink

The fact is you're trying to support the idea that a dowser in a single instance may actually be able to say dowse 10 out of 10. The problem with the BS argument is that I'll wager 9 BILLION 999 MILLION 999 THOUSAND 999 to your 1 that you will be wrong.

I fully "expect" Art to find on average 1 coin in his attempts. On average, the more replications of his test he runs, the average of all replications will converge asymptotically to the expected average of the binomial distribution, in this case 1. You can argue all you want about probability, I've had two major probability courses in my graduate level curriculum so I've been "taught" quite well on the subject, but I assure you no matter what you claim you've been taught, the binomial distribution DICTATES exactly what will occur over the long run which is not up for debate. He may find 0 (in a single replication), but there's a 65.133% chance he'll find AT LEAST ONE. By claiming he'll find 0 means you're "betting" on an outcome of 34.867% occuring. Sorry, I'll put my money on the one with a 65.133%.

 

[xupz]

Results of my test at a street fair and in a high school parking lot. The test had ten cups with a silver dollar under one of them. 100 people were ask to Dowse the location of the coin using a set of dowsing rods. 8 people out of the 100 found the coin. 20% of the people had heard about Dowsing. 7% had saw someone else Dowse. Out of the 8 people that located the coin 5 of them were people that had saw someone Dowse before...I don't know what all this means but if we had more results from random tests of people there would be some real numbers to work with....Art

Well Art, you can't draw any conclusions from it because the simple binomial design doesn't allow for controlling for extraneous variables such as if someone has seen someone dowse before. Also since you tested 1 person with n=1 trials you can't assume anything about them being able to dowse better than random. Is it surprising you got 8 out 100? 8% is well within the confidence intervals for the expected of 10%. All you basically did was run a test showing that the expected will converge to 10, nothing you couldn't have saved time doing by writing about 10 lines of code and running a program.

It's too bad you ran the test completely wrong to test any dowsing ability, unless YOU want to make the inference that after showing 100 people how to dowse failed to dowse on average significantly better than random