Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Theseus
Well, you said you were well aware of ordinary DB protocol, so I didn't feel it necessary to iterate the obvious. If you read over the example that Carl has already described, I don't think I'm suggesting anything different from it.
Please see:
http://www.geotech1.com/cgi-bin/page...nfo/dbtest.dat
However, what I did discuss I figured would be redundant, since you were already aware of DB protocol.
Answers to your questions:
1. I have no requirements for the ground the target and hiding devices would be on as long as it is an environment that the Examiner would be expected to operate correctly in.
2. The pre and post tests are to verify the device and operator are working correctly. If during several attempts of a pre-test the operator/device does not locate a plain-view target, then you can quickly conclude the device does NOT satisfy the attribute being tested, and I wouldn't see why you should waste time doing the trials.
If a pre-test was successful, than a successful post-test is simply to verify the device/operator are still operating correctly following the trials. If the post-test is not successful, than probably you should consider starting all over from the beginning. Perhaps certain conditions have changed, the device is no longer operating correctly, etc. etc. |
I never said I was well aware of "ordinary double blind" protocol. I said it doesn't exist. I made a post addressed to you saying
"there is no standard double blind test protocol. There are thousands of different double blind protocols".
Not only did you misquote me, you are are suggesting that Carl's protocol is the "ordinary protocol" for double blind. I say it is not, and no such "ordinary protocol" exists for double blind testing. It is a methodology, not a protocol. Carl's protocol that you cited is only one of several double blind protocols Carl described for testing dowsing and LRLs. Some of his protocols do not even include choosing from a number known hidden locations. What makes you think there is anything standard about a double blind protocol, or even about the different protocols Carl described for his tests?
I also pointed out some differences between the purpose of your double blind test and Carl's, as well as how Carl made provisions to modify his protocol to suit both him and the person applying to win his money.
You do need to be 100% redundant if you intend to copy only some parts from one or more of Carl's protocols, because you do not have any money at stake, and because the protocol you requested so far is not the same as any of Carl's. Do you have a clue why several people are specified in Carl's protocol you cited? His reasons do not apply to any of the parties who will be conducting your test request, and serve no purpose to me or anyone else involved at the test site. In fact they make the test more difficult to perform. Not even Carl's prize protocol specifies four people are necessary. He makes a provision to perform his test with only one person other than the claimant of his prize. It appears you decided to copy some procedures from one of Carl's test protocols to combine with your own protocol, not knowing how to design a simpler double blind test.
WesP as well as I will need to know any further details that you haven't explained yet, including what provisions you are allowing to modify the protocol, especially in the area of the four volunteers that must be recruited to perform your test.
I can insure the ground is suitable for testing an Examiner.
In the event that the operator is not able to find the target in plain sight during the pre-test, I still don't know what you suggest should be done. Your answer was I can formulate a conclusion about the results of test trials that are not started. I will not be formulating any conclusions. I will only perform a test and report the data. Should I speculate that you would suggest the test stopped if the operator cannot locate a known target location during the pre-test trial?
Best wishes,
J_P