$1,000,000 for anyone who can dowse.

[xupz]

...but I posted the links in order for everyone to make their OWN opinions.

That's the equivalent of asking a painter their opinion on specifics of string theory

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[aarthrj3811]

xupz...If two people get out of a car. One has a set of Dowsing rods. What are the random chance odds of the person without the dowsing rods finding gold? What are the random chance odds of the dowser finding gold? You can't give me the odds for this. You may be able to predict the out come in a controled test but in a ramdom event you would just be guessing. I don't have to know anything about ramdom chance odds. The person with no rods has no chance of find any gold unless he wants to dig up the whole area. The dowser has a 100% chance of finding gold if any is in the area. I am told over and over that Dowsing is no better than Random Chance. The numbers seem to change all the time. ..Art

 

[xupz]

xupz...If two people get out of a car. One has a set of Dowsing rods. What are the random chance odds of the person without the dowsing rods finding gold? What are the random chance odds of the dowser finding gold? You can't give me the odds for this. You may be able to predict the out come in a controled test but in a ramdom event you would just be guessing. I don't have to know anything about ramdom chance odds. The person with no rods has no chance of find any gold unless he wants to dig up the whole area. The dowser has a 100% chance of finding gold if any is in the area. I am told over and over that Dowsing is no better than Random Chance. The numbers seem to change all the time. ..Art

Wow... I honestly have no words. Let me make odds simple for you to understand. Odds is another way of writing a probability, let me be more clear, they represent similiar information, one is just the probability, while odds is the ratio of probabilities. Example, the probability of flipping a fair coin and it landing on heads twice in a row is .5^2 = .25. This means the probability of this (HH) is 25%. Odds is defined as odds = probability / (1- probability), so here the "odds" of flipping HH is odds = .25/(1-.25) = .25 / .75. This simplifies to odds = 1:3. Now to better explain the difference in probability and odds, the way you would read them:

probability = .25 = 1 OUT of 4
odds = .25/.75 = 1 TO 3 (chance for HH)chance against HH)

Edit* Also notice how you can get the probability from the odds by rewriting the equation probability = odds / (1 + odds) = (1/3) / (1 + 1/3) = .25. That should clear up the relationship between odds & probability.

Here's a simple defintion:
http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/glossary/Odds.html

"The dowser has a 100% chance of finding gold if any is in the area."

Do you have damn clue how often 100% certainity happens with anything in the real world? The odds of the dowser vs nondowser are EXACTLY the same in finding anything. This is a concept you're not grasping, you making a claim that probability = 1, which is ABSOLUTE CERTAIN that it will occur. Then you contradict yourself by stating only if there is gold in the area. Well if there's no gold in the area the probability is ZERO right? So according to you dowsers have a probability of either 0 or 1 absolutely. There is no in between. So following your own logic there should have been 100% success on every single experiment where any dowser was tested and interference is completely moot. There should be no deviation whatsoever. Variance is nonexistent as they have 100% success. So by stating a dowser can perform 100% makes it mutually exclusive of any and all excuses you claim. You can't claim interference, mental projection, or anything else caused you not to perform. You can't have both 100% success and claiming interference messed you up.

Claiming 100% then stating "I don't have to know anything about ramdom chance odds" is just ludicrous.

Edit* Oh yea "The person with no rods has no chance of find any gold unless he wants to dig up the whole area." IF they do dig up the whole area then you can't claim they have "no chance" can you? In fact, IF there is gold and they dig up the entire area, the probability of success is 100%.

 

[Sandsted]

"You're pulling an 'Art' again, ignoring recent posts. Science has thoroughly explained dowsing."

Yes Carl, since I don't agree with your conclusion (based on lack of knowledge) I'm just ignorant. "Science" (which I thought the general belief is that it is not a noun) has explained dowsing? What's your explanation for dowsing?

"I've found that dowsing is an exercise in self-deception."

There's no scientific justification for that. You can ignore that fact all you want. But your statistical monetary challenge is not a study in science.

If you are to disagree look at it this way.

Why does your blood clot?

Well to find the scientific explanation why don't we set up a challenge to see if people can really clot. After that we'll have our answer.

There is no scientific explanation for or against dowsing. That's the truth.

 

[xupz]

There is no scientific explanation for or against dowsing. That's the truth.

Well since dowsing hasn't been shown to work to begin with, you're right about that. I believe the point he was making is that the ideomotor response explains the movements of the rods (which is well documented in the scientific realm), which in turn reinforces the self-delusion something is actually happening to increase the probability of finds when in fact it does not. There doesn't need to be any explanation for or against dowsing because dowsing has yet to be proven or disproven. The only reason dowsing continues is because of the reinforcing self-delusion process it has on people, so trying to use science and methodology to disprove people's "beliefs" is the real problem that should be looked into.

 

[Carl-NC]

There is no scientific explanation for or against dowsing. That's the truth.

Science has explained dowsing. You just don't like the explanation.

 

[aarthrj3811]

There doesn't need to be any explanation for or against dowsing because dowsing has yet to be proven or disproven. The only reason dowsing continues is because of the reinforcing self-delusion process it has on people, so trying to use science and methodology to disprove people's "beliefs" is the real problem that should be looked into.

I agree but the way to prove Dowsing so far are not exceptable. He answered you question Carl. Where can all this proof you talk about be found?

The odds of the dowser vs nondowser are EXACTLY the same in finding anything

My mistake....I thought people used treasure hunting tools to increase the odds of finding something.

This is a concept you're not grasping, you making a claim that probability = 1, which is ABSOLUTE CERTAIN that it will occur. Then you contradict yourself by stating only if there is gold in the area. Well if there's no gold in the area the probability is ZERO right? So according to you dowsers have a probability of either 0 or 1 absolutely. There is no in between.

If I dowse an acre of land in 10 minutes and find nothing and the nondowser spents a week digging up the acre of land and finds nothing our odds are the same. OK..I understand that.

Edit* Oh yea "The person with no rods has no chance of find any gold unless he wants to dig up the whole area." IF they do dig up the whole area then you can't claim they have "no chance" can you? In fact, IF there is gold and they dig up the entire area, the probability of success is 100%.

I also understand that.

So following your own logic there should have been 100% success on every single experiment where any dowser was tested and interference is completely moot.

Now your bias is showing....Can you tell me what the odds are of a Dowser finding an unknown object in the field?....Art

 

[xupz]

Now your bias is showing....Can you tell me what the odds are of a Dowser finding an unknown object in the field?....Art

Art did you ignore my example regarding the coin? You need a probability before you can find odds. In order to find a probability you need to quantify your argument, otherwise it's pointless to make. I'll tell you this though, whatever the odds may be, they're exactly the same a blind deaf-mute person has digging spots at random.

As I said before, you made the claim of 100% success. This negates any and all excuses you can make because you can't claim 100% success and then claim interence. There should be absolutely no reason any dowser would fail any experiment under any circumstances because they're 100% on finding gold. You also can't claim that should someone actually dig up an entire field and find "nothing" while a dowser only needs 10 minutes.

You know what would be a funny test? Put a dowser up against someone with a metal detector. The person would the metal detector would make the dowser look like a complete fool.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Art did you ignore my example regarding the coin? You need a probability before you can find odds. In order to find a probability you need to quantify your argument, otherwise it's pointless to make. I'll tell you this though, whatever the odds may be, they're exactly the same a blind deaf-mute person has digging spots at random.

As I said before, you made the claim of 100% success. This negates any and all excuses you can make because you can't claim 100% success and then claim interence.

So your telling me that there is no way for you can give me the odds. The fact that I stated that there was no gold to be found has nothing to do with statistics?

I'll tell you this though, whatever the odds may be, they're exactly the same a blind deaf-mute person has digging spots at random.

Now that makes a lot sense and tells me what statistics are all about.

You know what would be a funny test? Put a dowser up against someone with a metal detector. The person would the metal detector would make the dowser look like a complete fool.

Don't tell my buddies about this. We have an agreement that I only dig spots where the gold is at least 12 inches deep. Some days I find more and some days they find more. The only thing that counts is that we have a lot of fun and drink a few Beers when the hunt is over....Art

 

[xupz]

So your telling me that there is no way for you can give me the odds. The fact that I stated that there was no gold to be found has nothing to do with statistics?

Clearly you don't understand even the most fundamental concept of an "equation". I gave you the equations and yet you still try to defend your argument. The only thing you're telling everyone is that you don't understand math at even the most basic level.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

I am curious,the statement was once made "if all of these similsr objects are continuously giving off energy, or whateve", how can a dowser claim to find a single gold object for example in a gold field"? Say a ring lost while placering.

Since it is obvious the area will be saturated with this Gold energy?

Waiting for a relatively lucid answer.on either side.

Tropical Tramp

 

[aarthrj3811]

Only skeptics, educated by James “Amazing” Randi and other magicians, are capable of spotting the tricks of the trade. “Scientists are easily fooled,” explained Randi, “because they think they know.” But only skeptics really know.

The question, then, is which phenomena currently dismissed by skeptics as paranormal are actually perinormal. “I mean, what if somebody-what if there really is a perinormal phenomenon which is then embraced within science and will become normal, but at present is classified conventionally as paranormal?”

Randi agreed he might have to pay up someday. But Dawkins had a trick up his sleeve. If a “psychic” phenomenon turns out to be real, then by definition it is physical and therefore not really psychic after all, and thus Randi still shouldn’t have to pay.


Dawkins’ sleight-of-hand notwithstanding, according to the rules of Randi’s competition, if a psychic ability is proven, he must pay up. Randi stated to me that a preliminary test would have to yield a probability of one in a thousand that the results were due to chance. After passing the preliminary, the investigator could commence with the formal test, which would have to yield a probability against chance of one in a million.

Now this is what I call a real LLAD.....Art

 

[xupz]

And, clearly, you have overestimated the importance of your opinion...... . It must be lonely at the top... .

Must have because I can't figure out why companies pay me 5 figures for consulting contracts. I mean being able to optimize and streamline processes and workflows which in turn save companies sometimes hundreds of thousands makes my time completely worthless. Unfortunately, you have me confused with someone who cares for your commentary and pointless links. Good try though (not really).

 

[xupz]

...just couldn't resist another opportunity for massaging your own ego...could ya' ?

Yep, exactly.

 

[aarthrj3811]

So...does your answer mean you do believe Geller can bend a spoon with his mind?
Hey SWR...I saw Geller bending spoons on TV. I also saw Randi's million dollar challenge on TV..Do I think that both of these TV shows were fakes? Art

 

[Carl-NC]

I probably posted that reference as proof that James Randi is a liar and a cheat, and it was proven a long time ago.

In the world of self-proclaimed psychics and paranormal believers Randi is, perhaps, the most hated and reviled person on the face of the Earth. So are you at all surprised to find people slamming him? You shouldn't be. I'm not.

Randi has exposed outright frauds. They hate him, passionately*. He has challenged cherished beliefs. That makes people very uncomfortable, often to the point they lash out in emotional self-defense.

Consider:

Do you really think Sylvia Browne can talk to dead people, or is she merely using cold-reading skills to bilk emotionally vulnerable people out of their money?

Do you really think Uri Geller is using psychic powers to bend spoons, or is he using the same tricks that magicians use when they bend spoons?

Do you really think that psychic surgery is an effective way to cure cancer, or is it the final scam for the terminally ill?

Do you really think magnetized water is healthier, or is it just more consumer fraud?

Do you think the people who mastermind these scams, and the people who have a deep belief in them, aren't going to try to discredit Randi?

You see, Judy, several years ago I started seriously looking at LLAD devices. I realized, based on testing, that they didn't work AT ALL. And, base on dissections, I found that the technical claims made of them were complete and utter nonsense. So I started writing reports on them, showing everyone what they are getting for their 100's or 1000's of dollars.

Now, there are manufacturers who are perpetrating this nonsense, and there are true believers who desperately want to cling to the notion that they may one day strike it rich by using these things**. Do you think they are going to idly sit by while I expose the absurdities of LLADs? I sure don't.

No, I've been personally attacked all over the web, called all kinds of names, and had all sorts of lies about me made up. Just yesterday, Art implied that I backed out of 2 challenges, when he knows that is a lie. I've been accused of stealing door prizes from a treasure show that I never attended. I've been accused of cheating in tests. I've even been sued for defamation by a manufacturer. And so on.

You see, Judy, in the world of treasure dowsing, I am one of the most hated people in the world, because I am the ONLY person on Earth who is exposing the truth about LLADs. But I also get heaping gobs of praise from people who avoided the LLAD scams because they read my articles. That makes it worthwhile.

So I look at all the rants about Randi and say, "So What? Let's see you do what you claim you can do." And they can't do it, never ever.

- Carl


*You can see the passionate hatred in Sam Nicholls' article.
**No one ever has.

 

[Sandsted]

So are you going to come up here so I can teach you to dowse?

 

[ClonedSIM]

So...does your answer mean you do believe Geller can bend a spoon with his mind?
Hey SWR...I saw Geller bending spoons on TV. I also saw Randi's million dollar challenge on TV..Do I think that both of these TV shows were fakes? Art

Is this a trick question?

A better question would be, "How would I possibly know what you're thinking, Art?"

 

[Captain Trips]

Science hasn't explained anything. A simple example is how to define a circle. Science has only explained an approximation, a close estimate but nothing more than a "square circle". That is not real. Mathmatics cannot explain infinity or anything that is real. You can quote me "Mathematics is an impotent attempt to confine the infinite, AKA God".

Forgive my late answer:

A circle HAS been clearly defined by "Science." A circle is that collection of points in a 2-dimensional framework which are all equidistant from a given point. A circle is that collection of points which satisfies the geometric equation of x^2 + y^2=n, where n is some constant, when plotted in a standard Cartesian coordinate system.

There you go: TWO clearly and simply stated "Scientific" definitions of a circle. These are not approximations, but exact definitions! Each one defines a set of infinite (but bounded) points and defines each of them individually!

(To continue into other dimensions, just increase the variables: A sphere is that collection of points in a 3-dimensional framework which are all equidistant from a given point. And it satisfies x^2 + y^2 + z^2=n in a 3-dimensional equivalent of the Cartesian coordinate system. A hypersphere is similarly defined in four dimensions, using x,y,z, and w coordinates. Etc. And those are also exact definitions.)

Your analogy fails. Try again.

Now, if that isn't a simple, straightforward definition of a circle, what more could you ask for?

 

[ClonedSIM]

How'd you dig go, Dell, the one you were on a week or two back?