probability theory

[Carl-NC]

No, it has not been "explained" here and here and here.

Your failure to grasp a concept does not mean it was not explained.

Dowsing is NOT guessing, it is either some kind of skill or ability, which is apparently beyond your grasp, and explains a lot.

No, dowsing is observation, intuition, and luck. When observation & intuition are removed, it is luck.

So in your view, if a person makes a claim that he/she is able to do something, using some sort of tool, you hold that in every case, the ability(ies) of the person have nothing to do with the result as compared to pure mathematical chance?

That doesn't even make sense.

Let me give you another example, since you see a professional baseball pitcher as having some kind of "skill" while you will not grant that any dowser is exhibiting any kind of skill:

What I said is that pitching baseballs has nothing to do with guessing... it cannot be compared. Someone who has no ability to pitch a baseball cannot fake it by guessing.

(For the sake of example) I say that I can hit a two inch diameter target with my rifle, using the variable powered scope 99 out of 100 shots at a range of 300 yards. My claim is that the scope I use is making my scoring average so high. You think it is then significant to compare this score (99%) with some mathematical average, which is averaged purely from mathematical theory, NOT using any kind of comparable scope? Would it not make more sense to have the shooter then try to match the result, WITHOUT using the scope, in order to see if that claim that the scope is actually affecting the shooting result?

You've successfully made another ludicrous analogy. Target shooting cannot be compared to guessing, because shooting skills cannot be faked by guesswork.

So if some one claims that he/she is DOWSING to find coins under cups, would it not make more sense to then compare how that person does, WITHOUT dowsing, in order to ascertain whether the claim that dowsing is actually causing some effect?

How would you KNOW they are not dowsing, even while supposedly guessing? Ferinstance, let's suppose someone really can dowse, and it doesn't matter whether they use a dowsing rod or not. How would you know that they have "turned off" their dowsing skill during the guessing part?

Another way to look at is, what if someone was an extraordinary "guesser"? That is, they don't claim to be a "dowser," but they can consistently call the flip of a coin, or they can call randomly drawn cards with impressive success. That "skill" would be sufficient to win them the Randi prize, even though they don't call it dowsing, and don't use a dowsing tool. But, in testing their skill, what in the world would you compare it to? Why, to mathematical probabilities... what everyone else who does not possess the "skill" would do in the same test.

Your insistance on making all comparisons to pure mathematical chance are not a good comparison,

Sure it is... if dowsing does not work, then (in the absence of cues) the results should be the same as ordinary guessing, namely an ordinary person's ordinary guessing.

This whole argument of not using mathematical odds only makes sense if dowsers, for some strange reason, have extremely poor guessing skills. Are you claiming that dowsers have extremely poor guessing skills?

What is it that you skeptics desire, that you are here baiting, waiting in an attempt to get some dowser to make some claim that you can then test and prove false?

Dowsers already make claims. Lots of claims. Claims that can be easily tested. But they don't want them to be tested, even when offered large sums of money.

What's really funny is, other people don't want them to be tested, either, and make extreme arguments to try and discredit skeptical views. So tell us, why don't you want dowsing to be tested?

Did it occur to any of our genius Skeptics that someone might make a claim on an internet forum, that he is simply stretching or embellishing things just a bit?

Why, yes, that occurs to me on a daily basis.

If you Mr Skeptic are SO far in advance of dowsers in sheer brain power, has it NOT YET OCCURRED to you that they very well might comprehend that the odds of guessing can be calculated, but that they DON'T AGREE WITH (or accept) YOUR CONCLUSIONS?

I'm open to your arguments as to why the entire field of statistics is wrong. Please proceed.

I will trouble you with one last question. Do you, Mr Skeptic (all) believe that mathematical, theoretical statistics and probabilities match with real world statistics perfectly?

In proper applications, yes.

If you believe this, you are more deluded than any dowser - for theoretical statistics just don't match with real world statistics. If you doubt this, contact any stock broker on Wall Street, where numerous mathematical statistical theories have been tried in attempts to "predict" and "beat the market" with astoundingly poor results.

Economics is not a random process. It responds to real events and real performance. Market knowledge will always outperform guessing.

Also, if you really think that there are no "good guessers" out there, why not run a simple test like that I ran here recently? I was shocked at how quickly our T-net members were able to guess correctly, but if you don't believe that some people are good guessers why not go ahead and run a simple test?

That's what I asked in my prior post. So are you game? Would you like to put your, and my, guessing abilities to a test, and see if either one of us can "beat the odds"?

- Carl

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Oroblanco]

My apologies for the "rant" which was so meaningless for you, and somehow now you have put the words into my post that I have said the entire field of statistics is wrong. Where exactly did I say that? Please post it here for me, as after all I am a 'dowser' so by your view, must be of such a low intellect that you geniuses will have to "explain" it for me. Just for your information, I have not "failed to grasp" ANY of the "concepts" presented here, but YOU HAVE; despite several attempts to show you the flaws in your "tests" which only compare some results with pure mathematical chance. If you believe that theoretical statistics match with real world statistics perfectly, you are the one who does not grasp a fact.

On second thought, forget about it, have fun trying to make fools of fellow T-netters, good luck and good hunting to you, hope you find the 'treasures' that you seek.

Oroblanco

 

[Carl-NC]

My apologies for the "rant" which was so meaningless for you, and somehow now you have put the words into my post that I have said the entire field of statistics is wrong. Where exactly did I say that? Please post it here for me...

"If you believe this, you are more deluded than any dowser - for theoretical statistics just don't match with real world statistics."

I'm eager to hear why you believe theoretical statistics is wrong.

If you believe that theoretical statistics match with real world statistics perfectly, you are the one who does not grasp a fact.

I have now twice posted an offer to let you "see for yourself" whether real-world guessing follows mathematical theory. We can do it on this forum, and everyone who wants to participate can do so. Would you like to know if what I am saying is true, or would you rather just keep believing?

- Carl

 

[aarthrj3811]

How would you KNOW they are not dowsing, even while supposedly guessing? Ferinstance, let's suppose someone really can dowse, and it doesn't matter whether they use a dowsing rod or not. How would you know that they have "turned off" their dowsing skill during the guessing part?

This is true Carl...But I have been told that you can't control the Ideomotor Response.

That "skill" would be sufficient to win them the Randi prize, even though they don't call it dowsing, and don't use a dowsing tool. But, in testing their skill, what in the world would you compare it to? Why, to mathematical probabilities... what everyone else who does not possess the "skill" would do in the same test.

To mathematical probablities...Which is someones guess as to what guessing is.

This whole argument of not using mathematical odds only makes sense if dowsers, for some strange reason, have extremely poor guessing skills. Are you claiming that dowsers have extremely poor guessing skills?

Guessing skills is all you seem to understand.

What's really funny is, other people don't want them to be tested, either, and make extreme arguments to try and discredit skeptical views. So tell us, why don't you want dowsing to be tested?

Common sense is all that is needed to discredit skeptical views.

I will trouble you with one last question. Do you, Mr Skeptic (all) believe that mathematical, theoretical statistics and probabilities match with real world statistics perfectly?

In proper applications, yes.

They are proven wrong almost daily

Economics is not a random process. It responds to real events and real performance. Market knowledge will always outperform guessing.

When I use my knowledge of where treasure may be found or what I read or see it is a clue that proves dowsing doesn't work? ...Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

When I use my knowledge of where treasure may be found or what I read or see it is a clue that proves dowsing doesn't work? ...Art

When you take these skills away, yes it does. This is why you could never pass Carl's gold coin/10 plates test.

 

[dowser 501]

Dell, have the 40 foot deep man made tunnels with treasures, been dug up or have they just been dowsed? Max

 

[Carl-NC]

O.K.Clown, & Carl, calculate the odds and explain your ability to chance guess the exact locations of Treasure related markers on a map, or photo, representing thousands of acres of rugged terrain from a distance of 2,000 miles away and how many times you have traveled to the guessed location(s) and repeatedly find the specific type of marker(s) exactly where you guessed they would be?

If I am allowed total freedom to define any funny-shaped rock to be a treasure marker, even though no treasure is ever found, then I could easily make all sorts of post hoc dowsing claims. But, in the absence of any real recoveries, I think such claims would be specious and deceptive. Certainly self-deceptive.

Dell, have the 40 foot deep man made tunnels with treasures, been dug up or have they just been dowsed? Max

I think Dell owns dowsing rods, but no shovel. Nothing ever gets dug up.

- Carl

 

[lucky1777]

Since you are good at map dowsing dell, I need some help. I know of a cave in northern Missouri, that was used to stash old cars from the 20s and 30s. There was a group of brothers who stole these cars and would bring them back to MO. The police were on to them so they blew the front of the cave shut. I would love to find this location. I know the story is true just need help finding them. Like I said, its in Northern Missouri. Thanks for the help.

 

[Carl-NC]

Carl,you are not challenged to prove your Dowsing claims, you are challenged to prove your guessing claims to be as good as Dowsing under the same realistic conditions encountered by professional Treasure Hunters.

OK, I'll start guessing the locations of treasure markers, then photographing whatever I find there and claiming it must be a treasure marker, even though it may only look like a rock. Then I will claim that there must be treasure 40 feet deep, proceed not to dig anything, and call it a success.

I think that pretty well matches your "professional" dowsing method.

_________________________________________________
Once upon a time a "professional dowser" offered me a $10,000 "bet" that his dowsing could outperform my guessing in a staged field test. I accepted his bet, and he clammed up tight and refused to discuss it any further.

I am now offering Oro (and Art) the opportunity to test his belief that "real-world" guessing doesn't match theory. But, just like before, the response is silence. It appears folks would rather believe, and not know.

- Carl

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HIO; Back, give me a day or so to review and catch up, then let the feathers settle where they may.

Don Jose de La Mancha Tropical Tramp

 

[Carl-NC]

At least for me, Treasure Hunting has not been an easy profession although you try to imply it is with your claim to be able to accurately Guess the locations of buried Treasure, and Treasure related artifacts from great distances.

In all your years of dowsing, you have yet to actually recover any treasure. All you have are exaggerated stories, doctored photographs, and empty holes, on the rare occasion that a hole was actually dug. I guarantee my guessing skills are good enough to match those results.

I will begin randomly guessing locations, photographing whatever funny-shaped rocks I happen to find, and provide the same level of "proof" that you have provided. And, I promise not to dig a hole... I'll just "believe" the treasure is 40 feet down.

Do you think this will be difficult?

- Carl

 

[aarthrj3811]

Stop pretending to be an expert, and complaining to viewers because field experienced folks do not find you to be believable, or scientifically creditable. Your public mockery of Treasure Hunters, exhibits your prejudice and dislike for the the Profession.

Gee....Just because you put the truth on this forum makes no difference. They will not understand. If you locate something it was because you were guessing. If you read their words carefully you will soon learn that all they know is how to Mock people who Treasure Hunt. They are Scientific want a be's..Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

I will begin randomly guessing locations, photographing whatever funny-shaped rocks I happen to find, and provide the same level of "proof" that you have provided. And, I promise not to dig a hole... I'll just "believe" the treasure is 40 feet down.

Go for it Carl..You may learn something...Art

 

[Oroblanco]

Greetings,
This reply is for you, Carl, out of courtesy.

You have offered to run some kind of test to prove your guessing is on a par with dowsing, correct? I already ran a guessing test, and the thread is still in the archives and if you had read it you already know how quickly it ended due to a correct guess. You must also know by now that I have not made any claim of being able to locate treasures (not counting water as a treasure, which actually it would be for myself) not of being able to find a coin under a cup or a plate or a bucket of coins or chest of jewels, the only dowsing I have ever done successfully has been for water. Are you starting to get a picture of just what your offer now has opened the door for? Ready to take a brief flight to Arizona from NC? For the test comparing guessing to dowsing as I do it is not going to be something we can do online or through the mails....

I say that if you come here, and guess a location to find water, in the earth and potable, you will fail; I will dowse a location to find water,in the earth and potable, and it will be successful. Here is where a need for a drill comes in - because both locations will need to be drilled and I cannot (yet) afford to buy a portable drill rig. (Still saving up for it.) No need to bring any kind of a cash prize, in fact if I could rent a drill rig I would do that, however I very much doubt that you would be willing to rent or buy a portable drill rig for the sole purpose of proving a point (after all you are busy with selling metal detectors) much less the time and expense of traveling to SE AZ so there we are - a sort of 'standoff'.

My "silence" has been due to not being online for a couple of days (I have other projects that demand my attention, much as you have a business to run) so I was not trying to be contrite or passive-aggressive. However I don't think there is much I can contribute further to any kind of discussion of dowsing, especially since I am a newbie at it, only use it to find water (and occasionally utility lines) and in my only experiment in trying to find silver coins that I could literally SEE, (on the ground in plain sight in the front yard) I got zero reaction from the dowsing rods; I neglected to actually step on them, so some time when I am not busy I will have to try it again; but so far I do not seem to have the knack of finding silver coins using dowsing rods. I was accused of being afraid to take a pre-test using buckets, (in another thread) but in fact I have never tried dowsing buckets of water and still have not tried it (we only have a few buckets and they are constantly in use - we raise horses) but some day I will try that too, if only to find out if that can be done with accuracy. My purpose for entering these dowsing threads in the first place was to learn how to differentiate between a large body of water and a small one by dowsing, which is something I cannot do (so far). Imagine my surprise...

So good luck and good hunting to you Carl (and everyone) I hope you find the treasures that you seek.

Oroblanco

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

CarlDowsing is NOT guessing, it is either some kind of skill or ability, which is apparently beyond your grasp, and explains a lot.

No, dowsing is observation, intuition, and luck. When observation & intuition are removed, it is luck.
*****************

sigh, "move luck and you have observation & intuition", :remove luck & observation and its intuition"? sheesh Carl not too brilliant an observation since it says absolutely nothing..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SWR:Art...I don't think quoting banned TreasureNet Members is the smartest thing to do. They don't have the opportunity to defend themselves, and the probability of you misquoting them is possible.
**************
I missed this, why were they banned?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AF: I like this paragraph. Can you dowse accurately at least 95% of the time? If not, you shouldn't say you can
**************
?? Can you name me any profession or skill where the operator is correct 95% of the time including staticians or even the medical profession?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AF: You refuse to understand what everyone else here has no problem grasping. Since it's just you, please continue to be ignorant. The rest of us can carry on without you.
**************
this is not conductive to impersonal debate, it is a personal insult not worthy of you nor the discussion, since it comes right out of the debaters manual,"when in doubt or at a loss to state an intelligible point, resort to a personal insult to throw the opponent off stride.and on the defensive".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AF: The whole correlation you're trying to make between hunting for treasure and guessing is just boorish and juvenile
*************

Again Af?? shame.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oro: Interesting. I still hold that a true "test" for a person who claims to be able to dowse coins under cups, should include a test with THE SAME PERSON guessing which cup held the coin, without any sort of dowsing tool, the exact same number of "runs"; while probability odds can be calculated, a general probability for ALL human beings is not necessarily the same odds for EVERY human being. It would be the same as saying that the average throwing speed of a baseball for ALL human beings is the same as a professional baseball pitcher, which would be ridiculous. Some people are just good guessers. After all, aren't we supposed to be testing the claim that the dowser is able to DOWSE the presence of a coin under a cup, so we should compare that person's dowsing against that same person's GUESS
**************
Agreed , but how to keep the dowser from subconsciously dowsing while he is supposedly guessing? Incidentally, no single test or in a single situation type of test, can possibly prove anything except guessing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Don Jose de La Mancha - Tropical; Tramp

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Carl: This is a ludicrous analogy... Professional pitching requires strength and skill, it has nothing to do with guessing
****************
Ah but it does with dowsing which is a developed ability such as pro pitching.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Carl: A dowser can certainly perform guessing trials, but it will need to be done a significant number of times in order to produce a viable distribution to compare with dowsing. You can't just do it once or twice
****************
Agreed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Carl: And, in the end, the distribution will be the same as what can be calculated.
*****************
Guessing perhaps, dowsing no -way. Too many variables. To quote from the above on pitching, even the best have poor days when they seem to be off. If you test a dowser under this accepted data, then he must be tested under the same condition and way many times.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CArl: We can do that, right here on this forum. Game?
****************
? You have already stated that this has been proven, and it was agreed upon, so what is the purpose.?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AF: This is why Carl has set up his tests,and given us all the handy charts, to compare guessing to dowsing. If a dowser consistently beats the results that can be obtained by guessing, then there is obviously something more to dowsing that just guessing
****************
Please remember that important word "consistently" which indicates multiple tests under the same type of conditions. Carl's present test does not do this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ORO; This attitude of pretended intellectual superiority on the part of our "friendly" skeptics is highly offensive and could not be further from the truth. If you Mr Skeptic are SO far in advance of dowsers in sheer brain power, has it NOT YET OCCURRED to you that they very well might comprehend that the odds of guessing can be calculated, but that they DON'T AGREE WITH (or accept) YOUR CONCLUSIONS? Obviously, this simple deduction has escaped the super-brains of the Skeptic World, it is more comforting to assume some kind of mental superiority!
****************
It is a mixed type of superiority, and closed thinking attempting to prove to themselves that they are right based upon incorrect data.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AF: The tough part is getting dowsers to comprehend that the odds of guessing can be calculated, even if they don't understand how
****************

?? Why? the problem is getting the sceptics to realize that pure guessing data does not apply in the case of dowsing, except only as a comparative basis "after multiple identical tests have been performed with multiple dowsers".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AF: Whew, that's some kind of rant there, Oro! It's meaningless, of course, but impressive nonetheless
****************
Odd, it makes sense to me?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Carl: So if some one claims that he/she is DOWSING to find coins under cups, would it not make more sense to then compare how that person does, WITHOUT dowsing, in order to ascertain whether the claim that dowsing is actually causing some effect?

How would you KNOW they are not dowsing, even while supposedly guessing? Ferinstance, let's suppose someone really can dowse, and it doesn't matter whether they use a dowsing rod or not. How would you know that they have "turned off" their dowsing skill during the guessing part?
*************
Agreed as stated above.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~Carl: Did it occur to any of our genius Skeptics that someone might make a claim on an internet forum, that he is simply stretching or embellishing things just a bit?

Why, yes, that occurs to me on a daily basis.
*************
Me too hehehe.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Carl: have now twice posted an offer to let you "see for yourself" whether real-world guessing follows mathematical theory. We can do it on this forum, and everyone who wants to participate can do so. Would you like to know if what I am saying is true, or would you rather just keep believing?
***************
This would be completely meaningless since it cannot be controlled or repeated enough to be meaningful.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AF: When I use my knowledge of where treasure may be found or what I read or see it is a clue that proves dowsing doesn't work? ...Art

When you take these skills away, yes it does. This is why you could never pass Carl's gold coin/10 plates test.
******************
When you take these skills away, yes it does?? DUH??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Don Jose de La Mancha - Tropical Tramp

 

[Carl-NC]

You have offered to run some kind of test to prove your guessing is on a par with dowsing, correct?

No, that is not what I offered. You explicitly stated that "theoretical statistics just don't match with real world statistics." You (and others here) have consistently stated that guessing ability CANNOT be calculated, and that it MUST be demonstrated every time dowsing is tested.

I suggested a simple test to show that when people guess, it really does follow a calculable statistical distribution, whether you're a dowser or a skeptic.

I already ran a guessing test, and the thread is still in the archives and if you had read it you already know how quickly it ended due to a correct guess.

Yes, by a dowsing skeptic, no less. Pretty good example of how blind luck can result in a correct answer that otherwise seems very improbable. I'm merely suggesting an extension of this test to get a better handle on what the actual distribution of guessed results is, and how it compares to the theoretical distribution that many of you believe cannot possibly apply.

You must also know by now that I have not made any claim of being able to locate treasures (not counting water as a treasure, which actually it would be for myself) not of being able to find a coin under a cup or a plate or a bucket of coins or chest of jewels, the only dowsing I have ever done successfully has been for water.

So why are you so offended by the test of someone else's dowsing claims? It seems to bother you mightily.

My "silence" has been due to not being online for a couple of days (I have other projects that demand my attention, much as you have a business to run) so I was not trying to be contrite or passive-aggressive.

My comment was directed at your ignoring my first 2 offers, not the 3rd.

Let me know if you're interested in knowing whether statistics Really Works.

- Carl

 

[Oroblanco]

I see that I ought to reply, again out of courtesy.

Carl wrote:

You (and others here) have consistently stated that guessing ability CANNOT be calculated, and that it MUST be demonstrated every time dowsing is tested.

Please show me where I said that guessing ability cannot be calculated, and must be demonstrated every time dowsing is tested? I do not recall ever making that particular statement.

Carl wrote:

I suggested a simple test to show that when people guess, it really does follow a calculable statistical distribution, whether you're a dowser or a skeptic.

As I mentioned, I also wanted to see how our T-net members were at simple guessing, and expected at least fifty guesses before someone got close, however apparently some members are good guessers. There is zero possibility of anyone knowing what that coin was, as even Mrs Oro did not know (prior to the test). So guessing does not conform to theoretical calculated results, especially in small batches - if repeated enough times then guessing would more closely match with the theoretical results, but if you read up on this a bit (as in the early research into extra-sensory perception for example) you will find that real world guessing never matches theoretical results perfectly.

Carl wrote:

I'm merely suggesting an extension of this test to get a better handle on what the actual distribution of guessed results is, and how it compares to the theoretical distribution that many of you believe cannot possibly apply.

I am now offering Oro (and Art) the opportunity to test his belief that "real-world" guessing doesn't match theory. But, just like before, the response is silence. It appears folks would rather believe, and not know.

Why not run your own guessing thread test, as I already did, and post the results openly as the guesses are made? If run enough times, the guessed results will more closely match with theoretical projected results as mentioned before, but it will never match perfectly. I have no problem with your running more tests. You do not need me to run a few sets of guessing games, which would likely be fun for those doing the guessing. If you think that running a single guessing test is going to match the theoretical projected result, let's find out publicly? Of course, at the very start of the test, post your projected statistical results, which can then be compared with the end result.


Quote (from Oroblanco)
You must also know by now that I have not made any claim of being able to locate treasures (not counting water as a treasure, which actually it would be for myself) not of being able to find a coin under a cup or a plate or a bucket of coins or chest of jewels, the only dowsing I have ever done successfully has been for water.


Carl wrote:

So why are you so offended by the test of someone else's dowsing claims? It seems to bother you mightily.

I am offended by repeated, only slightly veiled insults, which go without any type of apology, aimed at anyone who either dowses or is convinced that it works, not by testing claims; - however you do not actually test the claims, other than to compare someone's claimed ability against a theoretical chance result. This is not truly testing a claim; I have attempted to explain to you that when someone makes a claim of an ability, and dowsers almost all use some type of tool in their practice, then that claim should be compared against that person's attempt to match the result WITHOUT the use of the tool or dowsing, to determine if the claim that dowsing, using rods, twigs, plumb bob, or swinging a dead cat around is actually resulting in any difference in what they would achieve without the use of such tools. Your style of test can only show whether the claimed ability exceeded a theoretical chance result, or did not exceed a theoretical chance result, which does not actually prove whether dowsing has had an affect on the result of the person taking the test or not.

Carl wrote:

My comment was directed at your ignoring my first 2 offers, not the 3rd.

Let me know if you're interested in knowing whether statistics Really Works.

I ignored your first two offers, because I fail to see where they would be of any benefit to any party. Am I interested in knowing whether statistics "really works"? Thanks, already know that statistics work as a guideline, but not as an absolute proof. You have ignored my offer to put your claim to the test, that your guessing ability is equal to dowsing ability, a really simple task that does involve a bit of travel and drilling equipment, but then I expected that you WOULD dodge that.

What, no insult this time? I have come to expect them from you, as your version of "courtesy" and "manners". You skeptics are slipping....

Oroblanco

 

[aarthrj3811]

Studies of crash victims supported the empirical observation that those wearing seat belts were less likely to be killed or seriously injured than those not wearing them. Based on this type of study, predictions such as 45% reductions in fatal injury and 50% reductions in moderate-to-critical injury were made[

Predicted savings of lives in the thousands or (in the case of the USA) tens of thousands have been the standard currency of seat belt legislation proponents.

His study conclusion was that in the eighteen countries surveyed, accounting for approximately 80% of the world's motoring, those countries with seat belt laws had fared no better, and in some cases (e.g. Sweden, Ireland and New Zealand) significantly worse than those without. In order to explain this disparity, Adams advanced the hypothesis that Protecting car occupants from the consequences of bad driving encourages bad driving.

Gee Carl..When probability theories are used for Auto Saftey like Seat Belts, Air Bags, Reduced Speed Limits and other laws they don't seem to be correct. According to all the probabitity theories No one should have been killed in Auto Accidents sense around 1998. ...Art

 

[Carl-NC]

Carl wrote:

You (and others here) have consistently stated that guessing ability CANNOT be calculated, and that it MUST be demonstrated every time dowsing is tested.

Please show me where I said that guessing ability cannot be calculated, and must be demonstrated every time dowsing is tested? I do not recall ever making that particular statement.

*Sigh* This is getting really old...

"...while probability odds can be calculated, a general probability for ALL human beings is not necessarily the same odds for EVERY human being."

"...for theoretical statistics just don't match with real world statistics."

"...so we should compare that person's dowsing against that same person's GUESS."

As I mentioned, I also wanted to see how our T-net members were at simple guessing, and expected at least fifty guesses before someone got close, ...

Why 50 guesses? Why not 10? or 100?

...however apparently some members are good guessers.

Some members? How do you know that based on one result? So far, it looks like one member had one lucky guess.

So guessing does not conform to theoretical calculated results, especially in small batches - if repeated enough times then guessing would more closely match with the theoretical results, ...

Ah, now you understand why you cannot test a dowser's "guessing ability" with a single test, and maybe not even with several tests. This is also why it's important to understand theoretical statistics, so you can calculate the expected outcome distribution without having to run tons of unnecessary tests.

...but if you read up on this a bit (as in the early research into extra-sensory perception for example) you will find that real world guessing never matches theoretical results perfectly.

This is nonsense.

Why not run your own guessing thread test, as I already did, and post the results openly as the guesses are made? If run enough times, the guessed results will more closely match with theoretical projected results as mentioned before, but it will never match perfectly. I have no problem with your running more tests. You do not need me to run a few sets of guessing games, which would likely be fun for those doing the guessing. If you think that running a single guessing test is going to match the theoretical projected result, let's find out publicly? Of course, at the very start of the test, post your projected statistical results, which can then be compared with the end result.

OK... I was hoping you might reciprocate, but I'll do it solo.

I am offended by repeated, only slightly veiled insults, which go without any type of apology, aimed at anyone who either dowses or is convinced that it works, not by testing claims;

Can you show me where I've insulted anyone?

- however you do not actually test the claims, other than to compare someone's claimed ability against a theoretical chance result. This is not truly testing a claim;

Anyone who claims to be able to dowse, and claims that it is useful in locating something (e.g., buried gold) or determining something (e.g., dates on coins) MUST be able to exceed chance results, no matter what else they do. If they cannot exceed chance results with their dowsing, then the claim is bogus, no matter how well or poorly they guess.

I have attempted to explain to you that when someone makes a claim of an ability, and dowsers almost all use some type of tool in their practice, then that claim should be compared against that person's attempt to match the result WITHOUT the use of the tool or dowsing, to determine if the claim that dowsing, using rods, twigs, plumb bob, or swinging a dead cat around is actually resulting in any difference in what they would achieve without the use of such tools.

Let's assume that the results of a dowsing test are equivalent to chance guessing. This only way your argument makes any sense whatsoever is if their ability without a device is MUCH WORSE than chance.

In other words, if their dowsing is tested to be better than calculated chance, then they win without having to do the guessing portion. If their dowsing is equal to chance in a test, then their guessing ability would have to be worse than chance. Assuming this latter case turned out to be true, then the best you could say for dowsing is that it brought a real loser up to the level of mediocrity.

Now let's say your prior reasoning -- "Some people are just good guessers" -- is correct, and in the "guessing" portion the dowser does BETTER than chance. Now his dowsing will have to be EXCEPTIONAL in order to be considered useful. This puts the dowser at a significant disadvantage.

I ignored your first two offers, because I fail to see where they would be of any benefit to any party.

I am offering to show you that you are wrong about guessing.

You have ignored my offer to put your claim to the test, that your guessing ability is equal to dowsing ability, a really simple task that does involve a bit of travel and drilling equipment, but then I expected that you WOULD dodge that.

You're right, I have no interest in paying to have your well drilled. You stated you could easily dowse the well, so do it, and pay for the drilling yourself.

- Carl