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

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

author=xupz ]ORLY? That's awesome that people would think Af was me. Like minds eh?
************
Nah, I presume Af is logical and open
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...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....
*************
HI gal, you quoted him exactly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

quote]I'm just saying you have to show dowsing performs better than random (with a significant difference).
**********
Hmm no comment needed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Art I already explained odds for you, let me quote myself (bit of a stretch :P)
*************
close Xu, but not a home run since you are dealing in human factors which are easily manipulated or controlled by an infinite no of things. Statistics would become overwhelmed in classifying the infinite possibilities in attempting to create a suitable probability factor. As once stated, this would be comparable to counting the grains of sand in our galaxy. In theory yes, in practicability, no way.

Incidentally, moving away a bit from your narrow field, just how does the body develop cancer? And how is it best handled? Obviously since you have a broad education and interests, this should be a "piece of cake".

Tropical Tramp

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[xupz]

Incidentally, moving away a bit from your narrow field, just how does the body develop cancer? And how is it best handled? Obviously since you have a broad education and interests, this should be a "piece of cake".

Tropical Tramp

Well Realde, I'll be the first to say that proving "causation" is perhaps damn near impossible, even with statistics. You can show correlation between variables, but correlation does not imply causation. My professors have all stressed this point a billion times. To even make the claim one thing "causes" another requires such massive evidence that it rarely happens. Cancer is a great example. We can show variables that are correlated with cancer are probable to the cause, but we can't make the leap from correlation to cause without such support that no other possibility exists. BUT, we can easily test for cancer with any number of tests. We know if there is cancer or not. This is the same approach to dowsing. We can validate claims of a dowser performing better than random just as we can test if cancer exists or not. We don't have to look for any "cause" in dowsing, we're simply testing if it works or not. If some magical wizard dowser can actually perform better than random under an experimental design with valid methodology, then by all means we should look for the cause, but until then you don't jump from A->B and make conclusions on B when A is in question.

Here's a link if you're actually interested, I mean you did spit out the word "cause", perhaps this will educate you some on what you're really implying when you use that word.
http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/StatHelp/Correlation-Causation.htm

 

[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.

LMAO!!
Spoken like a true gentleman, and seeker of the truth.

 

[aarthrj3811]

These people can not give me the odds of radom chance. Why...Because it would prove that the tests are a scam....I know what my odds are of guessing the location in a test like Carls. Why...I have performed this test many times. If you tell me what the real odds are I will only ask one question. If you are trying to prove that Dowsing is no better than chance guessing ..Why are you requiring the dowser to have results that are 4 times higher than random chance?Art

 

[xupz]

These people can not give me the odds of radom chance. Why...Because it would prove that the tests are a scam....I know what my odds are of guessing the location in a test like Carls. Why...I have performed this test many times. If you tell me what the real odds are I will only ask one question. If you are trying to prove that Dowsing is no better than chance guessing ..Why are you requiring the dowser to have results that are 4 times higher than random chance?Art

Art I posted TWICE in this thread explaining odds. "These people can not give me the odds of radom chance." What the hell does that even mean? Is it too complicated for you to realize that you require NUMBERS TO CALCULATE THE ODDS? DUH? How about you spit out some numbers and you'll see plenty of odds. If you know your odds then how about you use the equation I've posted twice and get the probability. "Why are you requiring the dowser to have results that are 4 times higher than random chance?" Because you don't even have a concept of odds, trying to explain why you place a minimum success rate so high that it can ONLY be attributed to a success in dowsing would take forever.

 

[xupz]

Quote Xupz

" 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. "


Gee, am I missing something? What is the scientific term Working Hypothesis?


Quote Xupz
" 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."


A very sad, but true statement.....but also one, in my humble opinion, that will not deter science or dowsers from the pursuit of an explanation.

( By the way....I see that your degree has not innoculated you against bad grammar either.... . " ..is completely are.." ? )

Call it what you will, just keep in mind your working hypothesis still has to verify all assumptions including whether or not dowsing actually works. Otherwise any inferences and conclusions drawn from it are meaningless.

 

[Sandsted]

"Eerie, but I wanted to make sure she knew I wasn't swapping around as Sandy accused me of."

What?!

 

[xupz]

( By the way....I see that your degree has not innoculated you against bad grammar either.... . " ..is completely are.." ? )

Thought shifts. It is important to think about word choice you know.

 

[ClonedSIM]

"Eerie, but I wanted to make sure she knew I wasn't swapping around as Sandy accused me of."

What?!

A couple of pages back, not long after Xupz started posting. Don't make me go back and find it again like I did when you accused me of lying about you...

 

[ClonedSIM]

These people can not give me the odds of radom chance. Why...Because it would prove that the tests are a scam....I know what my odds are of guessing the location in a test like Carls. Why...I have performed this test many times. If you tell me what the real odds are I will only ask one question. If you are trying to prove that Dowsing is no better than chance guessing ..Why are you requiring the dowser to have results that are 4 times higher than random chance?Art

Dang it, Art, have you not learned to read posts yet? Here:

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?

I responded directly to your questions and let you know that you did not provide enough information. If you had read this and answered these questions, you would have your figures.

 

[Sandsted]

You did lie about me...and is it not true that (in your logic) proof is the responsibility of the person making the claim?

 

[Sandsted]

"Eerie, but I wanted to make sure she knew I wasn't swapping around as Sandy accused me of."

I may be mistaken as Af states that it was several pages ago, but I do not believe I stated this. Am I wrong?

 

[aarthrj3811]

I responded directly to your questions and let you know that you did not provide enough information. If you had read this and answered these questions, you would have your figures.

The Question was....If someone was to take Carls test what would be the number of hits that would be considered to be random chance or guessing?

You all claim to be the experts on dowsing...Carls test has been talked about and you have stated how great it is. How come you will not answer a simple question without a bunch of double talk. It should be easy to put down 1 in ten or whatever the number is that you guess would be right. ...Art

 

[xupz]

Are you employed on the Scientific field.....or Business?

If you're actually interested I run my own company on two tiers. We have a portion that does federal and state contracting (which at this point runs itself). Now I primarily do contracting for mid to large size companies and different departments optimizing and streamlining the processes/workflows they use and I'm starting expand hiring people to handle training & employee development. It's really a good niche market as most companies don't have a clue, time, or knowledge to do it themselves. Some of them are in such a mess I'm amazed they actually get any business done. Most companies tend to stagnate in their day to day business and never take the time to properly analyze the current situation and where they want to go. So that's where I come in. The fact is I save companies significantly more money than they pay me so it's win/win work.

 

[ClonedSIM]

"Eerie, but I wanted to make sure she knew I wasn't swapping around as Sandy accused me of."

I may be mistaken as Af states that it was several pages ago, but I do not believe I stated this. Am I wrong?

Oops, I'm sorry, Sandy. I double-checked and it was actually Art and dowser501 making those claims. My apologies.

 

[ClonedSIM]

You did lie about me...and is it not true that (in your logic) proof is the responsibility of the person making the claim?

I provided 7 examples that I was not lying about you, and Jeff went through and deleted each post of yours where you called me a liar.
And yes, proof is the responsibility of the person making the claim.
If you walk into court trying to sue someone for wrecking your car, you better have proof that he's the one that wrecked it, or you'll get nothing. Don't expect the other guy to provide the proof for you.
If you want to sell a new invention of your own making, you better be able to show people that it works, or you won't get many sales. Unless it's an LLAD, I suppose.
If you claim you found a Viking ship buried under your driveway, then be prepared to dig that ship up, because only a gullible individual would blindly believe you.

 

[xupz]

Of course I'm interested...or I wouldn't have asked. Sounds like a very rewarding and lucrative business. What types of companies do you find your business dealing with, in the most part?

Mainly mid/large middlemen type companies and their departments, several smaller manufacturing companies that needed some quality control work set up, things of that nature. I've only been expanding into consulting over the past year so it still has a ways to go. As far as the procurement goes there's just too many manufacturers we deal with (also middleman work). We have many other plans to expand into different markets in time so we can stay diverse. Overall it's good work, but more importantly it's on my terms

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

[=xupz link=]
You're just mad Helen Keller is as good a dowser as you
********

How did poor Blind Helen enter into the thread?


Tropical Tramp

 

[Sandsted]

The statement you were speaking of I had interpreted as this one. The statement itself was not incorrect, this one is.

"Then he tells me that he can only perform with like-minded individuals and friends around."

I do believe that I never said this. Therefore, if it is true that I did not state that, then I am justified in saying that you lied about me.

"I stand by my Statement.

Any Accusations of Lying Get deleted, along with the Complete Post."

And I accept your appologies, but in the future I ask that you check such claims before stating them so certaintly.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

[xupz
How "quant" of you to attempt to trivialize statistics.
***********
"quant" is slang for someone good at mathematics

**********

I accept that, TOUCHE" XU.

Tropical Tramp