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

[ClonedSIM]

Hey AF ! Thought you had gone to sleep on us...lol.

The weirdest thing....you remember the PM you sent me where you were swearing you weren't Xupz ( you said others had accused you of it in the past...though I hadn't even mentioned it )? Get this.....I just recently found out that Carl has his pilots license.......and AF1733 are the call letters of an airplane in a widely circulated joke in the pilots circles....lol. Funny, ain't it....what a coincidence....lmao.

Thought everyone would enjoy that....

Really? AF1733 was my employee number an a previous job, and I used it so much it's just easier to remember and no one else is ever using it wherever I register online. What's the joke?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[ClonedSIM]

LOL!

 

[xupz]

Hey AF ! Thought you had gone to sleep on us...lol.

The weirdest thing....you remember the PM you sent me where you were swearing you weren't Xupz ( you said others had accused you of it in the past...though I hadn't even mentioned it )

ORLY? That's awesome that people would think Af was me. Like minds eh?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Sheehs Judy that hits too close to home, I have had to break traffic to keep from stalling, a definite no no, but the Pilot in command has the final word on the safety of the aircraft subject to a later review. YOU HAD BETTER BE RIGHT OR ___!

Incidentally I wonder why no-one answered my question in post #833 in the $ 1.000.000 section? and until it is answered by SWR , Carl. or even xu hmmm. it will stay as a question for all to see and wonder why no answer..

Tropical Tramp

 

[Carl-NC]

Incidentally I wonder why no-one answered my question in post #833 in the $ 1.000.000 section? and until it is answered by SWR , Carl. or even xu hmmm. it will stay as a question for all to see and wonder why no answer..

I was wondering the same thing ( regarding your question ).....no dowsers or skeptics can answer this? Hmmmm....

I did reply...

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,61150.msg445937.html#msg445937

- Carl

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

[=Carl-NC ]I did reply... http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,61150.msg445937.html#msg445937
- Carl
***********
NO Carl that was not an answer, just an evasion. Reread what posted, "a ring in a placer field."

Tropical tramp

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

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

These days that is a distinct possibility, since many Painters make far more money with benefits than University lower staff. Their life is far less restrictive so they can enjoy it more, but in no way is this a measure of their intelligence.

Incidentally what is YOUR idea on the basic differences between the String,. Holistic Universe and the Wave theories? Which is probably statistically more correct?

Tropical Tramp

 

[xupz]

Which is probably statistically more correct?

How "quant" of you to attempt to trivialize statistics.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Hey AF ! Thought you had gone to sleep on us...lol.

The weirdest thing....you remember the PM you sent me where you were swearing you weren't Xupz ( you said others had accused you of it in the past...though I hadn't even mentioned it )

ORLY? That's awesome that people would think Af was me. Like minds eh?

Talk about it! I was PMing with Judy about some of the dowsing threads and I made some sort of comment that the causes of dowsing need to be explored before the results, then a post appeared within seconds by you that almost echoed my thoughts. Eerie, but I wanted to make sure she knew I wasn't swapping around as Sandy accused me of. Like minds, indeed!

 

[aarthrj3811]

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.

Hey xupz...That statement tells me all I need to know about Random Odds. Thanks for the information.

 

[ClonedSIM]

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.

Hey xupz...That statement tells me all I need to know about Random Odds. Thanks for the information.

Art, you still know nothing about odds, and you never will. Of course, you have no desire to learn anything not dowsing-related, so apparently you're no better than skeptics who refuse to believe any of your spiel either. Welcome to the club, your dues are late...

 

[xupz]

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.

Hey xupz...That statement tells me all I need to know about Random Odds. Thanks for the information.

You're just mad Helen Keller is as good a dowser as you

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

=xupz Which is probably statistically more correct?
How "quant" of you to attempt to trivialize statistics.
***********
It is, I am full of "quaint" surprises., especially when that is ALL that you present on anything, so I assumed that it fit into your language and thought patterns.

Tropical Tramp

p.s. speaking of spelling?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey AF1733....Maybe if I ask my question in a different way someone can give me an answer that makes sense. If someone was to take Carls test what would be the number of hits that would be considered to be random chance or guessing? Everything you need to know is in writting so one of you people with the sharp pencils should have an answer....Art

 

[xupz]

Hey AF ! Thought you had gone to sleep on us...lol.

The weirdest thing....you remember the PM you sent me where you were swearing you weren't Xupz ( you said others had accused you of it in the past...though I hadn't even mentioned it )

ORLY? That's awesome that people would think Af was me. Like minds eh?

Talk about it! I was PMing with Judy about some of the dowsing threads and I made some sort of comment that the causes of dowsing need to be explored before the results, then a post appeared within seconds by you that almost echoed my thoughts. Eerie, but I wanted to make sure she knew I wasn't swapping around as Sandy accused me of. Like minds, indeed!

...and it gets stranger by the minute.....considering the post Xupz made yesterday stating that the RESULTS of dowsing is what his proposed tests are designed to measure....

Re: BIAS...
« Reply #23 on: Yesterday at 07:39:36 PM

I'm just saying you have to show dowsing performs better than random (with a significant difference).



Art I already explained odds for you, let me quote myself (bit of a stretch :P)

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.

There's your explanation of odds as simple as it's going to get. Clearly, using basic math skills, you can see the odds equations requires a probability to calculate the odds. Then again, you already claimed probability of 1 (100%) which is pretty interesting considering odds are undefined at probability of 1:

odds = 1 / (1-1) = 1/0 = undefined

 

[xupz]

=xupz Which is probably statistically more correct?
How "quant" of you to attempt to trivialize statistics.
***********
It is, I am full of "quaint" surprises., especially when that is ALL that you present on anything, so I assumed that it fit into your language and thought patterns.

Tropical Tramp

p.s. speaking of spelling?

"quant" is slang for someone good at mathematics

quant Pronunciation (kwnt)
n. Slang
An expert in the use of mathematics and related subjects, particularly in investment management and stock trading.

 

[Carl-NC]

Hey AF1733....Maybe if I ask my question in a different way someone can give me an answer that makes sense. If someone was to take Carls test what would be the number of hits that would be considered to be random chance or guessing? Everything you need to know is in writting so one of you people with the sharp pencils should have an answer....Art

You didn't read my challenge, did you Art? If you had, you wouldn't be asking that question. You didn't try out my statistics calculator, did you Art? If you had, you would know the odds of every outcome.

Art, can't you make even a token effort?

- Carl

 

[ClonedSIM]

Hey AF1733....Maybe if I ask my question in a different way someone can give me an answer that makes sense. If someone was to take Carls test what would be the number of hits that would be considered to be random chance or guessing? Everything you need to know is in writting so one of you people with the sharp pencils should have an answer....Art

In Carl's test, I'm not sure. That would be a question more suited for Carl, I would think.

As far as Randi's test goes, he typically asks for a 60-70% success rate. Of course, you already know this as you claim to have read his site. This 60-70% success rate (6-of-10 or 7-of-10) are the odds he requires in order to claim success in his challenge. Please note this has nothing to do with the odds related to guessing or random chance, but simply what he requires.

The number of hits required to be considered better/same as/worse than guessing would vary depending on the number of potential targets and locations you're asking about. Do you have 1 target and 10 potential locations? Is it 9 targets and 1000 locations?

It's apparent you still don't understand this, so not everything needed is in writing, as you put it.

 

[ClonedSIM]

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.

Hey xupz...That statement tells me all I need to know about Random Odds. Thanks for the information.

Art, you still know nothing about odds, and you never will. Of course, you have no desire to learn anything not dowsing-related, so apparently you're no better than skeptics who refuse to believe any of your spiel either. Welcome to the club, your dues are late...

What club is that, AF, that you are welcoming Art to ( as a fellow member I presume, hence the welcome? )
The people who know nothing about odds club?
The people who have no desire to learn anything not- dowsing related ( a group you are apparently stating includes skeptics )?

Or was the whole post just your sweet way of letting Art know you empathize with him?

I'll go with the empathy thing.

 

[xupz]

Hey AF ! Thought you had gone to sleep on us...lol.

The weirdest thing....you remember the PM you sent me where you were swearing you weren't Xupz ( you said others had accused you of it in the past...though I hadn't even mentioned it )

ORLY? That's awesome that people would think Af was me. Like minds eh?

Talk about it! I was PMing with Judy about some of the dowsing threads and I made some sort of comment that the causes of dowsing need to be explored before the results, then a post appeared within seconds by you that almost echoed my thoughts. Eerie, but I wanted to make sure she knew I wasn't swapping around as Sandy accused me of. Like minds, indeed!

...and it gets stranger by the minute.....considering the post Xupz made yesterday stating that the RESULTS of dowsing is what his proposed tests are designed to measure....

Re: BIAS...
« Reply #23 on: Yesterday at 07:39:36 PM

I'm just saying you have to show dowsing performs better than random (with a significant difference).

Oh...I see... ....so, if your thoughts echo AF1733's....and he was saying that the causes of dowsing need to be explored before the results......then why are you so intent on designing a test that only measures the results? Could it be that.....gasp.....a statisticians opinion is only applicable to "results"?

Or, better explained as the fact that a statisticians level of "confidence" is only as good as the method used to obtain the data measured?

You see, there's a simple thing called "logic". Trying to determine why dowsing works when it hasn't been shown that it works is pointless. In all likelihood it doesn't work so any conclusions made on why are irrelevant aren't they? It's like starting to build warp engines without proving warp is even possible. I mean should tomorrow dowsing is suddenly proven to be completely false, then every little theory you had on why dowsing works is completely are utterly worthless. Scientists don't operate this way, nor do average people, the logic of the approach is flawed except in the case of dowsers who are delusional anyway.

Dowsers: We can dowse, but we can't prove it or validate any of our claims.
SKeptics*: So you claim you can dowse, let's see you do it and validate your claims. If you can prove you can, then let's figure out why.

However this is what's more likely to happen: As technology and science continue to become more prominent and influential in our society over generations, dowsers are going to be faced with more and more people pushing them to prove their claims, of course this will also mean unrelenting ridicule in the process. All the while there will be less people who learn to dowse because they will be skeptics from the start from scientific mindsets learned through school and society in general. Even if dowsing is never shown to go either way, they're a dying breed and will end up extinct at some point in the future.