How many coins will I find?

[Jean310]

No apology is neccessary....Quotes and post have a habit of becoming missing around here. If I could find your post and my post I would re-post them....I know what I read....Art

From what I've seen so far of your comments and your retorts, it would surprise me to learn that you are capable of recalling content from one minute to the next, much less over several days. Clearly you have very little (or nothing) to offer in the way of proof to support your position in the debate/discussion, and seem to only be here to inject your inane little logic-less snippets of antagonism in an effort to carry on a completely useless word battle with a few of your adversaries against which you are no match at all.

<<<< did I leave anything out, Judy? >>>>

Jean

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

=Carl-NC]
=JudyH ]
Btw....I think those are the same crickets I hear in the background every time I ask you the question I asked on that thread.....
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Here is a sum total of all the questions you asked me on that thread:
Answer to question #1.....am considering all that are suggested, Carl....do you have one?

I replied.


Answer to question #2.....still taking suggestions, Carl.......do you have one?

I replied.?

Question for you, Carl.......
....... Is this your excuse for not using "RealScience" in your own tests for it?
*************
I've thoroughly covered this in prior threads.
So tell me, Judy, exactly why are you afraid to discuss my suggestions? Too closed minded?- Carl
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Of the unholy quartet Carl you are actually by far the most intellgent and balanced, even IF you aren't a statistician, don't disallusion me.

Tropical Tramp

 

[xupz]

No apology is neccessary....Quotes and post have a habit of becoming missing around here. If I could find your post and my post I would re-post them....I know what I read....Art

From what I've seen so far of your comments and your retorts, it would surprise me to learn that you are capable of recalling content from one minute to the next, much less over several days. Clearly you have very little (or nothing) to offer in the way of proof to support your position in the debate/discussion, and seem to only be here to inject your inane little logic-less snippets of antagonism in an effort to carry on a completely useless word battle with a few of your adversaries against which you are no match at all.

<<<< did I leave anything out, Judy? >>>>

Jean

Jean FTW.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

[=xupz .<<<< did I leave anything out, Judy?

**************
Yep what is the latest in Internet Hookers? blushing , haven't seen you there for a few days?

Outside of a few certain possible statistic factors you just cannot hold a candle to Judy in intelligence my egotistical vampire hunter.

Tropical Tramp

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

=SWR Jean made that post, not xupz. Are you insinuating Jean is a internet hooker ??
***********
as usual swr, sigh, where is Jean's name mentioned? you seem to have a reading problem swr. you don't seem to see comas or other forms of punctuation.

I suppose that it lucky that that jean doesn't actually have me on ignore, hehehe otherwise she might read your usual misinterpretation instead

your typical tactic swr, sorry I won't respond as you wish.

Tropical Tramp

 

[Carl-NC]

But I will not be goaded...or forced to discuss anything, either. I believe you are familiar with that tactic...aren't you?

Yeah, folks are goading me all the time. Most recently Realde. Art does it quite a bit.

Over the following days I was ridiculed, mocked, personally attacked and subjected to such childish behavior, it was astounding.... by the skeptic group...yourself included.

I challenge you to find a single instance where I have done any such thing to you.

Yet you...and others...continue to try to force others to either agree or disagree with your arguments. There is no room for any other possibility than you are right. I find this personally distasteful...and refuse to be forced into that situation.

I responded to your thread with exactly what you asked for, under the assumption that you might want to discuss it, per the stated theme of the thread. I'm not asking you to agree or disagree with me. Just discussion. That's why I asked, "Does this sound like a reasonable approach so far?" instead of, "You should agree with everything I said."

My methods have been lacking in polish, I agree....but at least I attempt to be objective.

Well, I sure have doubts about that. The second part, not the first.

I have not replied to your post...simply because you are trying to force me to....period.

I'm sorry, but that's a rather juvenile reason.

So...where does one go when wanting to remain neutral, yet wanting to take part of the Dowsing forums....without having to be ridiculed, mocked, etc.?

Your neutrality is on par with Art's or SWR's. And if you review each and every reply that I've made to you on this forum, you'll find a complete and total absence of the ridicule and mockery you've accused me of. Therefore, you can be assured that any exchange you have with me will be cordial and polite, even if we completely disagree.

Your answer to my question.... " I've thoroughly covered this in prior threads. "....is really not an answer. It is an attempt to force me to go to those threads and be subjected to the same old song and dance routine.

"Is this your excuse for not using 'RealScience' in your own tests for it?" was not really a question as much as a presupposition (and, violated your "belittling" clause). In any case, considerable discussions took place on this topic very recently, in which I thoroughly explained why the methods I use are scientific. If you don't feel like reading those threads, then you're welcomed to ask authentic questions, and I'll gladly answer them. I reserve the right, however, to cut-and-paste my prior answers, instead of typing fresh replies.

- Carl

 

[Henry Hartley]

Judy I would say you have been very fair to the subject and have made the best points that I have read in months on this forum. You will soon leave unfortunately as I am sure you have a life unlike the frequent poster and his aliases on this forum. Alas, I think the venom spills into their personal lives as I have recieved some info that one of your chief antagonists has been divorced by his wife and one of her grievances was his addiction to these forums and the madness that it caused. Too bad. I'll keep reading you as long as you last which I predict will not be much longer.
Henry Hartley

 

[Jean310]

Since I have no idea why my name belongs in this post....?.....I can only guess...

My guess is that you are a Trophy Fisherperson.
How does it feel to have the minnow mounted on your wall?

Judy

It feels great! It was all I could do to lift it up and get it on the wall... almost hurt myself on the sword. Sometimes I amaze even myself. I only mentioned you because I thought you might enjoy the prose --and a good laugh. I realize you're busy baiting your own hook right now; so never mind.

Jean

 

[Carl-NC]

Since I did not reply soon enough to please you.....you decided to put your somewhat misguided conclusion out there...so I would be either forced to reply.....or appear to be in agreement with you by not replying.

I simply concluded that you did not want to discuss the topic that you claimed you wanted to discuss. It appears that my conclusion was absolutely correct, and that the purpose of your entire thread was disingenuous. However, I completely understand your reluctance to honestly discuss this subject, especially with the only person on this forum who actually has experience in this area.

- Carl

P.S. -- I see that you were completely unable to substantiate your accusation that I have "ridiculed, mocked, [or] personally attacked" you in any way. Most likely because it did not happen.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Gee Carl....I thought I started this thread. I thought someone my have some real facts from real tests to shear with us, You talk about all your test results but I don't see them. Your excuse is that those Dowsers will not help me. ...Art

 

[Jean310]

OK now ....I am a Dowser..I am going to take one of those Scentific Double-Blind Test. There will be one coin placed under one of 10 cups. I will make my run and be scored. I will make a total of 10 runs. How many coins will I find?. Now you have to remember that all Dowsing is the same as guessing.The only question here is HOW MANY COINS WILL I FIND?

I thought it would be rather unique if we brought this thread around (full-circle) to where it was started. (Sure hope nobody minds.)

If, as you say, your dowsing is the same as guessing, then here is what you can expect to see for results.

Given 10 cups, 1 target in one of the 10 cups and you will execute the test 10 times (10 trials) then, here is what you can expect to see as results:

The Probability of Zero Hits is 0.348
The Probability of One Hit is 0.387
The Probability of Two Hits is 0.193
The Probability of Four Hits is 0.011
The Probability of Seven Hits is 8.748E-06
The Probability of Ten Hits is 1E-10

As you can see, roughly 93% of the time you will experience Zero, One or Two Hits.

Now, on the off chance that you were thinking of using this test as a tool to demonstrate how dowsing can do better than ordinary guessing, I would say you had better shoot for hitting at least 5 or more, to demonstrate a lot of confidence, maybe even 6 or more. That is, if you do the entire test, say 3 or 4 times (10 trials each), you could certainly boast some real talent if all those tests exhibited a score of 6 or more. (That's just my opinion, Carl or others might have a different mark that you should shoot for.) Of course it goes without saying, the test would have to be conducted and monitored according standard db protocol.)

BTW, have you actually done this test yet, and what were your results? You asked the question. Several have given you an answer, now it's probably time for you to do the test and tell us what happened.

Oh...... incidently, if you want to check my math, you can run the values through this and see for yourself:

P = C(n,k) pk (1-p)n-k​

Jean

 

[aarthrj3811]

I

thought it would be rather unique if we brought this thread around (full-circle) to where it was started. (Sure hope nobody minds.)

If, as you say, your dowsing is the same as guessing, then here is what you can expect to see for results.

Given 10 cups, 1 target in one of the 10 cups and you will execute the test 10 times (10 trials) then, here is what you can expect to see as results:

The Probability of Zero Hits is 0.348
The Probability of One Hit is 0.387
The Probability of Two Hits is 0.193
The Probability of Four Hits is 0.011
The Probability of Seven Hits is 8.748E-06
The Probability of Ten Hits is 1E-10

As you can see, roughly 93% of the time you will experience Zero, One or Two Hits.

Now, on the off chance that you were thinking of using this test as a tool to demonstrate how dowsing can do better than ordinary guessing, I would say you had better shoot for hitting at least 5 or more, to demonstrate a lot of confidence, maybe even 6 or more. That is, if you do the entire test, say 3 or 4 times (10 trials each), you could certainly boast some real talent if all those tests exhibited a score of 6 or more. (That's just my opinion, Carl or others might have a different mark that you should shoot for.) Of course it goes without saying, the test would have to be conducted and monitored according standard db

Oh...... incidently, if you want to check my math, you can run the values through this and see for yourself:

P = C(n,k) pk (1-p)n-k

And all this is proof of What. I read about a Scientific Study from the University of Texas which may have used these Scientific Methods. The reason we have Tornados in the USA? It is because our Automobiles travel in the wrong lane. When they pass each other it makes the air spin in the wrong direction. They do not have Tornados in England so this makes this study correct. Is this one of those formula that was written when Scientist swore the world was flat? ....Art

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Boring repetion of an extremely flawed set of incomplete protocols.

Show me where the infamous posts #6 & 88 are factored into this?

If not,then it is worthless and should not dredged up from the discard pile.

Tropical Tramp

 

[Jean310]

And all this is proof of What. I read about a Scientific Study from the University of Texas which may have used these Scientific Methods. The reason we have Tornados in the USA? It is because our Automobiles travel in the wrong lane. When they pass each other it makes the air spin in the wrong direction. They do not have Tornados in England so this makes this study correct. Is this one of those formula that was written when Scientist swore the world was flat? ....Art

What in the world are you talking about? Seriously.....

You asked a question to start the thread. In that question were the words "how many". How many would infer that any answer you receive would by default involve some mathematics in order to arrive at how many.

If you didn't want a how many type of response --did you mean to ask some other question?

What exactly is your hang-up or problem with rational science and mathematics? Do you even know?

Look around the room you're in. Nothing you see could have existed without some involvement with rational science and mathematics, with the exception of the dog sleeping in the chair.

I give up.​

I thought maybe some of the other posters were not being fair to you, but alas; I think they were giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Sorry I bothered you...... I'll try to remember that if I see you ask a question in the future, it's probably something you really don't want answered. How incredibly strange.

Jean

 

[diggummup]

OK now ....I am a Dowser..I am going to take one of those Scentific Double-Blind Test. There will be one coin placed under one of 10 cups. I will make my run and be scored. I will make a total of 10 runs. How many coins will I find?. Now you have to remember that all Dowsing is the same as guessing.The only question here is HOW MANY COINS WILL I FIND?

Gee Carl....I thought I started this thread. I thought someone my have some real facts from real tests to shear with us, You talk about all your test results but I don't see them. Your excuse is that those Dowsers will not help me. ...Art

Gee arthur,I started out on this thread with some respect for you,even though I don't believe in dowsing,I gave you the benefit of the doubt.That time is now over!You asked for numbers pal,clearly stated THE ONLY QUESTION HERE IS,HOW MANY COINS WILL I FIND?.Your a walking,talking,typing contradiction.It's no wonder noboby takes you seriously.I think you just like to hear yourself talk.What a joke!

 

[aarthrj3811]

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

It is a simple question.....Did I ask for a Scientfic Guess? I have ask many times for any Scientific Study that proves Dowsing is just plain old guessing. Where is the proof. Satistics are great. You can twist and turn them to prove anything that you want to.

You asked a question to start the thread. In that question were the words "how many". How many would infer that any answer you receive would by default involve some mathematics in order to arrive at how many.

So the answer to all my questions is Mathematics.....I guess I was wrong. I thought some non-Dowser may have tried this experiment and had an answer as to how many they guessed. ( a real number) Then I would have something to campare my results with (my real numbers). I have faith in Science. Until there is a real study to base the calculations on they are just an educated guess and are just a starting point and proof of nothing....Art

 

[Jean310]

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

It is a simple question.....Did I ask for a Scientfic Guess? I have ask many times for any Scientific Study that proves Dowsing is just plain old guessing. Where is the proof. Satistics are great. You can twist and turn them to prove anything that you want to.

You asked a question to start the thread. In that question were the words "how many". How many would infer that any answer you receive would by default involve some mathematics in order to arrive at how many.

So the answer to all my questions is Mathematics.....I guess I was wrong. I thought some non-Dowser may have tried this experiment and had an answer as to how many they guessed. ( a real number) Then I would have something to campare my results with (my real numbers). I have faith in Science. Until there is a real study to base the calculations on they are just an educated guess and are just a starting point and proof of nothing....Art

Art, you are so far off base, it's hard to know even how to respond to you. Secondly, it is quite easy to see that you have an innate fear of anyone on here who you perceive might be associated in even the slightest way with rational science or a "touch" higher educational level than yourself. That fear causes you to lash out with some very ill-thought responses, which I'm sure in most cases are knee-jerk reactions learned over time on this and other forums. What an unfortunate conundrum for those of us that don't really know you that well.

Now, bear with me for a moment while I attempt to set you straight with a couple of facts!

Satistics is a foreign entity to me. I have not studied it, nor do I know anything about it. Perhaps it is something peculiar to the practice of dowsing. If it is I'm sure you will enlighten me.

I did not give you a Scientific Guess. What I did provide you with was a scientific fact having its roots in one of maybe hundreds of accepted statistical tools, which were developed a very long time ago to answer questions exactly like the one you asked. Further, there is currently no better tool for answering the type of question you asked, ergo I used it.

Secondly, I did not twist, bend, change or otherwise deform the formula I used AND quoted to you. You can find that same formula for a Binomial distribution in thousands of different references, both on the internet and in texts. It is merely a tool, obviously one that is totally foreign to you; but nevertheless a tool. Neither did I utilize the wrong parameters during the application of that tool. So, your charge that I twisted things to prove something is completely without cause. If you notice, I did not offer the numbers as a proof that dowsing does not work. It was simply an answer to your question.

Just accept it as an answer, and get over it. If you don't like the answer, or who it came from, I can't help that. Perhaps you should spend a little more time formulating your questions, so they elicit a response that is more to your liking. Just a thought..........

Jean

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Hi Art: Relax, they still haven't figured how to factor in the data from the infamous posts #6 & #88 without which their vaunted statistics formulae are worthless for showing whether dowsing works or not.

It might work on how many people might activate a light switch upon entering a dark room, light a cigarette on a break, or on an Assembly line booboo, guess the flip of a coin, etc., but zero for dowsing, or any of the other countess subtle responses of the human body/mind complex.

Some how I have a diffcult time trying to understand why such a narrow parameter of data is wholeheartedly accepted without analyzing or questioning it, just parroting a formula that cannot possibly, in rational intelligence, be applied to dowsing and expect a reasonable answer. One where they themselves have stated that there is an immeasurable no of variables involved? Is no free thinking involved or allowed, just rote?

Tropical Tramp

 

[ClonedSIM]

Hey JudyH..This forum is a laugh a minute...Jean and af both adding something to my Quotes. One of the favorite tricks is to ask a question and then when you answer it they go back and modify their post. Another trick is to change their name so they can answer their own posts. Heck..There is one guy here that posts as a dowser and a skeptic and argues with himself....Art

Go ahead and point out mine as well, Art. I know you had troubles with Jean's, but perhaps you can find posts that I've modified?

Oh, and please tell us who posts as a dowser and a skeptic?

Are you really Carl?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey Realde.....When people respond with the kinds of answers I have gotten in the past few weeks it makes me wonder...Where do these people live? Maybe in never never land. When ask what my odds of finding gold when I get out of my car I am told that it is the same as a blind man. This is from the same people who claim that they can tell the outcome of dowsing events. The odds are that a blind man will trip on a big rock or a fallen limb or even walk into a creek.(Before you zoom on that statement I mean no put down of the handycapped as my wife is one).

They don't know what my education level is (I stayed as far away from English and writting as I could) but what I was not taught in school has been learned from the school of hard knocks. I'm not from the "show me" state but that seems like a good moto.

Hey af1733....Don't worry...it's not you..you are easier to figure out...Art