How many coins will I find?

[Carl-NC]

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.

This is what I would expect if the dowsers were just guessing at the location of the silver dollar.

- Carl

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[aarthrj3811]

This is what I would expect if the dowsers were just guessing at the location of the silver dollar.

- Carl

Do you have to put your spin on everything I say? They were not Dowsers....They were people walking along minding thier own busines...Art

 

[Carl-NC]

This is what I would expect if the dowsers were just guessing at the location of the silver dollar.

- Carl

Do you have to put your spin on everything I say? They were not Dowsers....They were people walking along minding thier own busines...Art

I thought they supposedly dowsed the location. Looks like they just guessed.

I've read another report (here on TNet, no less) where ordinary people were asked to try dowsing on a plainly visible target, and the overwhelming result was success. So, when non-dowsers can see the target, they succeed. When they cannot, it's guessing.

- Carl

 

[ClonedSIM]

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

I stand corrected. That was about what I expected.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey Carl....Your right Carl.....Almost anyone can step on a coin and the rods will cross...If they find an unknown target you call it guessing. How do we know if they are guessing or having a responce from a signal. If you ask a non-dowser they will tell you they don't know why the rods crossed. So there is no facts there.....Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

And what has this test shown us, Art?

Is it...that more study is needed?

It is...that a dowsing test should incorporate people who have dowsed before?

Is it...that dowsing only works as well/less than chance?

 

[aarthrj3811]

And what has this test shown us, Art?

Is it...that more study is needed?

It is...that a dowsing test should incorporate people who have dowsed before?

Is it...that dowsing only works as well/less than chance?

No....In my opinion you can not design a test that proves Dowsing does not work unless you involve 1000's of Dowsers and 1000's of non-Dowsers. All the proposed test will only prove that one Dowser could Dowse.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI aa precisely, this is one reason why statistics and present proposed tests fail completely to prove if dowsing exists or not. Only that a subject failed in an extremely biased / flawed test.

Tropical Tramp

 

[ClonedSIM]

And what has this test shown us, Art?

Is it...that more study is needed?

It is...that a dowsing test should incorporate people who have dowsed before?

Is it...that dowsing only works as well/less than chance?

No....In my opinion you can not design a test that proves Dowsing does not work unless you involve 1000's of Dowsers and 1000's of non-Dowsers. All the proposed test will only prove that one Dowser could Dowse.

I understand where you're coming from in some sort of way, Art. I've made comparisons to poker before, because I play a lot of it, and some tournaments I play in result in me being knocked out after the first couple of rounds, and sometimes I make it to the final table.

In this way, I can say that I don't succeed today the way I might have yesterday. But since I play the same way, or close to the same way each day, I should expect the same results? Not at all, because there are other factors at play, such as the table I'm seated at, the cards I'm dealt, the amount of chips I have, etc.

But, in the long run, poker if profitable for me, otherwise I wouldn't play. So how about this?

A series of tests, say three one week and three the next, in which the variables are changed subtly each day. Never to the point that you know where the targets are, but changes like location, time of day, the type of target, the type of target cover, things like this.

Then you take all the data gathered and compile it to provide one final percentage. Would this be a more reasonable test in your view?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

ho af, getting there but still lack a bit.

keep the test "constant" - absoloutely the same - do not introduce any more variables. Never let either of the two groups of testors or the testees know of the results until the series is terminated. also change the testors each time from sceptics to devout believers equally.

If possible, only when the testee is feeling confident that day, before the test begins..

There is no way any truly neutral witnesses could be located since we are all subject to subtle influences from past readings or words..

This will give a fairly reasonable scale to start with. Actually it would take "many" such teats with different dowsers to strike an accumulated average which is necesary for "reasonable Proof:.

Tropical Tramp

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI Until such time as the series of tests as explained in post #80 are finished, there is no place to even mention statistics any more.

It sort of reminds me of the serious debate in the past centuries, "how many angels can be placed on the head of a pin:. Statistically it was proven to be -------.

Tropical Tramp

 

[xupz]

The present challenge criteria is based on probable odds for Guessing. It is a test to measure guessing ability, and not Treasure Dowsing ability. Two different type of applications which are being mis-construed to only serve the promotion gimmick, and agenda of an isolated Skeptic group.

When the probable odds of Treasure Dowsing ability are established, only then will there be a legitimate basis for debate, or criteria for testing Treasure Dowsers.

So at the risk of repeating myself for a hundredth time, folks need to consider the source, accept these so called challenges for what they are. Successful,self promoting Skeptic group Gimmicks, for obtaining FREE advertising & publicity to call attention to the Skeptic websites

It is well demonstrated on these forums. Dell

Wrong. Another typical dowser excuse, this time trying to change the "definition" of what's being measured to invalidate the results. The fact is if someone can dowse, then doing significantly better than random guessing should be a simple task.

Keep up that good work Dell WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE~!

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

=xupz Wrong. Another typical dowser excuse, this time trying to change the "definition" of what's being measured to invalidate the results. The fact is if someone can dowse, then doing significantly better than random guessing should be a simple task.
***********

Xu i am still waiting for you to answer my post # 6?? Also when dealing with an infinite no of variables how can you come up with a positive finite number?? duh.

You are on your own effectively, since jean has chickened out.

Tropical Tramp

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Touche' B & B.

Tropical Tramp

 

[xupz]

=xupz Wrong. Another typical dowser excuse, this time trying to change the "definition" of what's being measured to invalidate the results. The fact is if someone can dowse, then doing significantly better than random guessing should be a simple task.
***********

Xu i am still waiting for you to answer my post # 6?? Also when dealing with an infinite no of variables how can you come up with a positive finite number?? duh.

You are on your own effectively, since jean has chickened out.

Tropical Tramp

Well Realde, I'll give you an example. Let's say we're using linear regression. Since I'm certain it's above you, it's in the most basic terms an equation in which you are trying to predict a variable (the dependent) using as many (independents) as you want (I call it shotgunning when you're just looking for correlations, also what data miners do to a degree). Now what happens with the mathematics, is that the p-values with certain variables is that they're so small (generally below a set alpha) that they are removed from the equation altogether. This makes perfect sense because they only account for a variance so small that they don't matter. If a single variable accounts for 50% of the variance in the dependent, then why keep a variable that accounts for .00000000001% of the variance? There are other reasons not to keep the worthless variables as they complicate the model as well as impact the r-square of the model.

The point is your little "infinite" variable argument is a pathetic joke. In real life you RARELY see anything that has a ton of variables. There's your answer, although I'm certain you will just dismiss it because you have no experience with statistical modeling and just won't understand it. If you actually had ever even done a single basic regression of any type, it would be so blatantly clear you would feel stupid trying to promote you question as some great understanding when it's in fact a complete lack of it.

I realize you just don't have the education or experience to see that, much like all the dowsers on here, but it's the way it is. If you need some recommendations on books, I have easily a few dozen covering almost every single kind of modeling there is. You want to argue on my level, pick up a book or go google some examples so you can learn about how "variables" are dealt with in the real world.

 

[aarthrj3811]

This user is currently ignored.

And again you show us how much Satistics means

 

[xupz]

This user is currently ignored.

And again you show us how much Satistics means

Art ignored me? That's awesome. He couldn't handle the overwhelming logic and math. It is a triumphant day indeed. Skeptics 1, Dowsers - 0 (and 0 finds too )

Who's that calling Art? It's Ivy Mike.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

=xupz link]

Hi ego bound: Xu i am still waiting for you to answer my post # 6??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also when dealing with an infinite no of human variables how can you come up with a positive finite number?? duh.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well Realde, I'll give you an example.basic terms an equation in which you are trying to predict a variable (the dependent) using as many (independents) as you want (I call it shotgunning when you're just looking for correlations,
*****************
Correlations? for some silly reason I have been under the impression that you have flatly stated that dowsing cannot exist due to your magnificent mind and unbelievably accurate reasoning in statistics?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8lso what data miners do to a degree). Now what happens with the mathematics, is that the p-values with certain variables is that they're so small (generally below a set alpha) that they are removed from the equation altogether. This makes perfect sense because they only account for a variance so small that they don't matter.
*************
Break out your high school psychology books my weird friend, when you include the known & para-normal factors in human behavior that flies out of the window.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The point is your little "infinite" variable argument is a pathetic joke. In real life you RARELY see anything that has a ton of variables. There's your answer, although I'm certain you will just dismisss it
************
we agree on something after all, I do just dismis it flatly as baseless.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

t because you have no experience with statistical modeling and just won't understand it. If you actually had ever even done a single basic regression of any type, it would be so blatantly clear you would feel stupid trying to promote you question as some great understanding when it's in fact a complete lack of it.
**************
duh sniff pore stupid me, I finished that jazz practically in grammer school.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I realize you just don't have the education or experience to see that
***********
sigh blushing in embarrassment or am I? perhaps it is your one track narrow minded extremely limited education which will not allow, or more likely, understand something that is not strictly enclosed in your shibboleth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You want to argue on my level,
**************
why drop from mine down to yours?? let's work on the human subconsciousness, sub-liminal reception and, yes, the para-normal while under regressive or progressive hypnotism.

while you are at it please address my post #6, quit evading the question.

Tropical Tramp

 

[xupz]

Not really, he just doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, and every single post just gets more ridiculous than the previous. When people point it out he just evades anything you say and says " WHERE'S MY ANSWER?". I can't even stand to read that garbled post above. I mean why bother trying to debate an issue with someone who can't even figure out how to use "quote" & "/quote". Then he'll just attack any logic with rhetorical questions used to obfuscate the factual math that can't be debated, afterall one can't defend against weapons one doesn't have or understand. Sad really, in the beginning I thought he might have some actual thought behind his posts, I can see now it's more like trying to teach Art how to multiply.

Oh yea, and he seems to love psychology so much, probably has degree in it or maybe some courses. But here's a question, how do pyschologists test for chemical imbalances for mental conditions? Oh whoops, they don't because those tests don't exist. Instead, they prescribe medication to help correct a chemical balance of which they can't test for or even know exists. Here's your dowsing rods sir, that'll be $1000. No thanks.

 

[xupz]

http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/39165/No_Science_No_Benefits.html
http://www.cchr.org/index.cfm/7343

XD.