Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

[EE THr]

Thank you very much..You have determined the test results before any have been done..

OK, I'll change my wording on that.

"So it is capable of proving them all right or wrong."

Is that satisfactory to you now?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[aarthrj3811]

No

 

[EE THr]

That figures.

 

[EE THr]

artie---

Carls test will only prove if one person can or can not use his device..Art

Wrong again!

As many people can take the test as want to. Therefore every LRL maker or user that exists can take the test. So it is capable of proving them all right or wrong. So, unless there is only one LRLr in existence, you must be wrong.

(Edited per artie's request.)

It's been two days, artie, and you've been posting everywhere else, but not responding to this.

Are you caught between a rock and a hard truth?

 

[aarthrj3811]

It's been two days, artie, and you've been posting everywhere else, but not responding to this.
Are you caught between a rock and a hard truth?

That will not make Carl’s or RANDI’S fake double blind test real..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment
A blind or blinded experiment is a scientific experiment where some of the persons involved are prevented from knowing certain information that might lead to conscious or unconscious bias on their part, invalidating the results.
For example, when asking consumers to compare the tastes of different brands of a product, the identities of the latter should be concealed — otherwise consumers will generally tend to prefer the brand they are familiar with. Similarly, when evaluating the effectiveness of a medical drug, both the patients and the doctors who administer the drug may be kept in the dark about the dosage being applied in each case — to forestall any chance of a placebo effect, observer bias, or conscious deception.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-double-blind-test.htm
A double blind test is a scientific test in which neither test subjects nor administrators know who is in the control group and who is in the experimental group. The intent is to create an unbiased test environment, ensuring that the results of the testing are accurate and will stand up to analysis by other members of the scientific community. The concept of a double blind test is an excellent example of the scientific method, since it aims to be entirely objective and potentially repeatable.
And the best of all
http://skepdic.com/control.html....
A double-blind test is a control group test where neither the evaluator nor the subject knows which items are controls. A randomized test is one that randomly assigns items to the control and the experimental groups.
The purpose of controls, double-blind, and randomized testing is to reduce error, self-deception and bias. An example should clarify the necessity of these safeguards.
It sure seems that you do not know what a Double Blind Test is..
Persons... subjects…control group… consumers..
More than one person...Art

 

[EE THr]

artie---

You have posted all that before.

And I have appropriately answered: Carl's test is for LRLs, not drugs.

You know better, artie.

That's a #21. Keep up the good work.



ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

It sure seems that you do not know what a Double Blind Test is..
Persons... subjects…control group… consumers..
More than one person...Art

 

[EE THr]

artie---

Sorry, but you are wrong. You seem to have started off with a definition slanted toward drug testing (because you keep trying to bring that up).

The term "double-blind" has nothing to do with drugs.

I showed you the top definition, and provided a link. I explained what the "blind" part of the term was referring to.

It's very simple. The definition itself has nothing to do with what is being tested, or how many people are being tested, or anything like that.

It just means that neither the participant nor the administrator of the test know where the "item" is. This is true, whether it's drugs being tested on hundreds of people, or one LRL being tested using one operator, or ten LRLs being tested using ten operators.

The point is that nobody knows where it's at. And that's all that "double-blind" means.

Has nothing to do with numbers!

 

[EE THr]

artie---

P.S. I think you already know all of the above, and are just doing another #17, because you have no real reason not to take the test, and you think it's better to say something nonsensical than admit that Carl's test is fair.

ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

P.S. I think you already know all of the above, and are just doing another #17, because you have no real reason not to take the test, and you think it's better to say something nonsensical than admit that Carl's test is fair.

Sorry you have a lack of reading comperention.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-double-blind-test.htm
A double blind test is a scientific test in which neither test subjects nor administrators know who is in the control group and who is in the experimental group. The intent is to create an unbiased test environment, ensuring that the results of the testing are accurate and will stand up to analysis by other members of the scientific community.

 

[EE THr]

Artie---

We have been here before. You are just trying to lead this discussion in circles.

artie---

I think that the only definitions you have seen are in relation to the testing of drugs.

The following are excerpts from Wikipedia, for both blind and double-blind tests---

A blind or blinded experiment is a scientific experiment where some of the persons involved are prevented from knowing certain information that might lead to conscious or unconscious bias on their part, invalidating the results.

Double-blind describes an especially stringent way of conducting an experiment, usually on human subjects, in an attempt to eliminate subjective bias on the part of both experimental subjects and the experimenters. In most cases, double-blind experiments are held to achieve a higher standard of scientific rigor.

You want to apply the drug testing definition.

You refuse to accept the main definition.

Why is that? Are LRLs a drug for you?

Or are you on their payroll?




All I can say is: Sumpthin' ain't right with yer logic!

 

[aarthrj3811]

You refuse to accept the main definition.

Where can this definition be found ?

 

[EE THr]

artie---

I provided a link.

It's on this page in two places.

The quote box, in my above post.

And my original post, which I quoted.

 

[aarthrj3811]

A classic example of a single-blind test is the "Pepsi challenge". A marketing person prepares several cups of cola labeled "A" and "B". One set of cups has Pepsi, the others have Coca-Cola. The marketing person knows which soda is in which cup but is not supposed to reveal that information to the subjects. Volunteer subjects are encouraged to try the two cups of soda and polled for which ones they prefer. The problem with a single-blind test like this is the marketing person can give (unintentional or not) subconscious cues which bias the volunteer. In addition it's possible the marketing person could prepare the separate sodas differently (more ice in one cup, push one cup in front of the volunteer, etc.) which can cause a bias. If the marketing person is employed by the company which is producing the challenge there's always the possibility of a conflict of interests where the marketing person is aware that future income will be based on the results of the test.

Volunteer subjects.....If the marketing person is employed by the company which is producing the challenge there's always the possibility of a conflict of interests where the marketing person is aware that future income will be based on the results of the test.

 

[EE THr]

artie---

That was a good example of a single-blind test.

I provided both single and double, in my excerpt.



Also, Carl has specified that a proctor (third party) can administer the test. But that's not the point, because the administrator is not going to inform you of where the target is, because he won't know.

And if Carl did administer the test, and even if he did know, I don't think he's going to tell you!

So what's your worry?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Good to see that you do not understand the S at the end of the participants..It means two or more

 

[EE THr]

artie---

You keep wanting to use examples where there must be more than one person testing the item.

LRLs are not cola, artie.


Your use of this ploy is done, so stick a fork in it.


You know full well how to test an LRL. Do you have a hundred people when you test your LRL?

So enough with the cute stuff. Everyone can see through it by now.


Man-up, take the test, and get it over with.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Thanks for pointing out that my LRL is not a cola..The question is still the same…Why take a test that will prove nothing but if one man can or can not use his LRL ? May be you can tell us what you think it will prove..Art

 

[EE THr]

artie---

Alright, I will accommodate your request.

1. The test has already proven that no LRLer can pass a Scientific test.
2. The test has shown that no LRLer has enough confidence in his own claims to take the test.
3. The test will show whether or not the applicant and his LRL can successfully find a target.
4. The test will show whether or not an LRL works, because nobody who is unable would apply.
5. The test will show whether or not a specific maker's LRL works, because the maker can choose the most able person to operate his LRL.
6. The test will show that, if no LRL maker can find an operator who is very good at using that machine, then there is little chance that anyone who buys it can successfully operate it, either.
7. The test will show whether or not LRLs are fraudulent.

Are all those enough?



If you disagree with any of those, as pertains to your question of, "What will the test prove?" please let me know.

 

[Carl-NC]

Why take a test that will prove nothing but if one man can or can not use his LRL ?

It would separate the Credible Capable Claimants from the Blustering Bombastic Braggarts, an absolutely scandalous proposition for the Braggarts.