Thanks for the link. Very informative about the protocol used by Randi in the dowsing tests. I read nothing to suggest than anyone has ever passed the threshold of achieving a result that was statistically significantly better than random chance. So it could be that the OP’s question is moot. There hasn’t been any “hits”.
What does the following have to do with the subject?
Well, in your links, the % blank is left open, and there is no discussion of the protocol. A very similar test was done and there is discussion of Non-Water dowsing.
To clarify again, that’s impossible.
I am not defining a “hit” as someone passing the test.
I am not defining a “hit” as someone passing the test.
I am not defining a “hit” as someone passing the test.
Someone, somewhere, somehow should eventually have to be re-tested. I’m not asking to test something paranormal here. Picking correctly given a one-in-ten chance does not require paranormal talents.
The only importance of hitting on the first try really comes from the Randi with the dowser video I linked to in this thread.
When the dowser misses on his first attempt, he gets another attempt. That changes the math, because one option is eliminated. (Interesting aside, if you watch the video, the dowser is unsure if it’s, for example, 4 or 10. He picks 10. Then he tries 4 again, giving himself, to the unskeptical eye, two tries for one.)
So, hitting on the first try is only relevant to that.
But let’s say that again. There is nothing special about hitting on the first try.
There should be no surprise when it happens. I’m only surprised that it doesn’t seem to happen. Where are “those” hits?
That’s from your own cite. Damn, that Randi, he’s a tricky man hiding the figure in plain sight like that.
SiXSwordS, there is a free forum at randi.org that might be a good place for you to post your question. It is well moderated, but perhaps more on topic RE the MDC and protocol for such tests. They may know a bit more about the details you seek about past tests.
Unfortunately, Peter Morris posts there, too, AFAIK under the same name. :rolleyes:
Nice personal attack there, Musicat. Do you have anything to contribute or are you just going to insult me?
Musicat. Not a warning. But, sheesh!
Can you keep these kinds of posts out of General Questions?
samclem General Questions Moderator.
Cutting room floor, I suspect. No edited documentary is going to have time to show everything. Let’s say they test ten guys, and nine don’t hit first time and one does. It would be regarded as dull to show all ten attempts. So they will just show two or three. If they showed two misses and the one guy that hit, then the impression created would be of quite a reasonable rate of success, which would be inaccurate. So they probably just show the failures which creates approximately the right impression, but not the absolutely accurate impression.
One of the problems with science as popular entertainment is that most science is button counting and bottle washing (as I think Heinlein said) and it’s dull, dull, dull. So inevitably they show the fun bits and you’ve got to hope that they show something that still gives an acceptably accurate impression.
It’s frustrating as a purist, I agree.
Yes, Princhester, Randi is indeed a tricky man. The fact is that he did indeed hide the figure, just as you say. He hid it so well that most of his supporters fail to spot it. Even when it is pointed out to them, they still go back to the belief that the score was 13%. Randi is good at word games like that. It’s very sad that he is able to fool you every time.
[Moderating]
This, again, is a matter of opinion, and editorializing. I am going to insist that you stick absolutely, strictly, to facts in this matter. You are to refrain from critcism of Randi personally in this thread. You may criticize his methods if you want, but not make implications about his motivations. If you depart from this again, you will receive a warning for failure to comply with instructions.
In fairness, I am also instructing other posters to refrain from snark, insults, and other personal aspersions about Peter. You may address the factual content of his posts, but do not make your remarks personal.
Nearly every thread mentioning Randi develops into a trainwreck due to personal disputes between Peter and other posters. I’m going to see if we can avoid that happening with this one.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Thanks for another resource.
I tend to agree, if only because the answer seems to keep coming back to this. Maybe someone at the randi.org site will have some access to the out takes.
Bolding mine.
He did no such thing. Each dowser was rated pass/fail on the merit of his own test.
Bolding mine.
Each dowser failed to meet his own expected success rate. Randi only adds them together as a summary of the test as a whole.
SiXSwordS, why is it important that you find some tests where the first try (of a series) was an apparent success? No one is saying they don’t exist.
Let’s say that someone is, indeed, not providing all recorded data and covering up some apparent successes. Other than dishonesty, what does that prove? We have enough data to know Pretty Darn Well that tests of this sort routinely return results indistinguishable from chance.
It seems like all you could prove in your quest is that a representive cross-sampling of test results isn’t readily available to the public, and that may be the case. Anything else we should be looking for?
Difficult to answer, in part due to time constraints.
It seems to me that a lot of people are saying a lot of things — including that there have been no hits at all — and I would like to have a better understanding of my own rather than one that is pre-digested.
I don’t agree that it proves dishonesty…
One of the things I am trying to get a better grasp of (BTW: my copy of how to lie with statistics is waiting for me as we speak) is what exactly it means that something is, as you put it, indistinguishable from chance.
I’m not sure I proved anything either.