Another large-scale test, the third, of my paranormal claim of medical dowsing is now being planned. I have had two tests prior, the IIG test, and the TAM test.

Does the claim deserve another test?

Now that I am contacting another skeptical organization which offers to test claims of the paranormal, I first must consider whether I bring to them a claim that is deserving of yet another test. The question is not whether I would want another test, because the study of a claim (or research hypothesis) must not be done out of a personal nature. A paranormal claim, as a research hypothesis, must be considered entirely based on the facts of its previous demonstrations, without any emotional bias. It would become unethical for a claimant to pursue test after test, if evidence suggests that it is time to let go of the claim and consider its investigations completed, due to the time and work invested by both skeptics and oneself.

If we look at the seed test I had in July 2011, there was a 50% chance of guessing the correct answer, so random chance would predict that I get about half of my answers correct, if there is no extra special ability at hand. And my results were precisely what random chance would prefer. On that test, I was given a whopping 30 individual samples to look at, and I submitted still a large number of 15 answers. Since the results from 15 answers perfectly align with what random chance predicts, would there be any reasonable cause to suspect that I might achieve better results at another test? Of course another test on the detection of internal fungi in plant seeds would not be expected to produce any results better than random chance - because it has not, in the past, and because this hypothesis was given a large enough number of trials, and results from those trials were consistent and perfectly align with random chance.

Meanwhile the results from my two previous tests on missing kidney detection have been interesting and on the higher range than what random chance predicts. Factoring into my consideration, as I have to do, are the many anecdotal past experiences of readings with skeptics, including the reading I had with skeptic Michael Shermer. Results have been better than they should be, and while I may be unable to quantify the overall reasoning in terms of statistical computations (since I lack those skills in statistical mathematics), it is overall clear that previous results do permit and possibly also mandate the claim of medical dowsing further consideration in future tests.

What is the claim?

The claim is that of medical dowsing. The ability to experience accurate medical information about persons by use of some unknown extrasensory method, information which is otherwise not accessible to ordinary perception or reach under current conditions. I do not actually "claim" to have such an ability. I do experience the medical images that occur spontaneously, which compel me to investigate by merits of their own due to interesting cases of inexplicable accuracy and test results that seem to exceed what random chance would prefer. But I do not know if I can do this until evidence strongly arrives at that conclusion, and that is done by means of scientifically valid evidence rather than personal conviction.

A third test should involve subjects (the persons I look at) who may be missing either a kidney or a uterus. I am tempted to propose a test which involves a variety of possible ailments, but these two (missing kidney and uterus) involve some of my strongest perceptions in the past (ie. easiest to do), and it is best to allow the test to focus on one or a few forms of medical information rather than many. These two should also be considered not detectable under the conditions of the setup of the test, ie. you should not be able to tell just by looking at a person's back whether they are missing either of these organs. (Unless you happen to be looking at the back of a man so you know that he cannot have a uterus, isn't that so, Locknar?*)

*There was a fun discussion in the JREF Forums where Forum member (and now I think Moderator) Locknar insisted that a test to detect whether or not a person has had a vasectomy should involve both male and female subjects. Why? Because I had said that I claim to detect whether "a person" has had a vasectomy or not and I had not specified that I meant a male. Locknar was next to impossible to convince until after a lot of time and work he finally got it. He might still be confused about it who knows.
Here is one page with the discussions

I also wrote to Locknar: "But Locknar, as soon as anything suggests to me that it is a female, I will know that she has not had a vasectomy. Could we stop suggesting that women are involved in a vasectomy detection test right this very instant? I hate to tell you but you are beginning to look a little bit ridiculous. How old are you?" - it was a classic

Testing protocol

The purpose of a paranormal test is to show whether or not a person can demonstrate a paranormal ability. To do so, we must first carefully identify any normal sources of positive results and then each of those must be disabled one by one. Past studies and tests and reading experiences (with skeptics) have taught me heaps about what those sources might be, how to disable those, and what conditions I might still require enabled lest the "ability" shuts down. Note that in most cases, or say in all cases, if a claimed paranormal ability shuts down as the normal sources of accuracy are disabled, it means that the ability was normal, and not paranormal at all, even though it might be the case of a special or magic talent. (Magic talents are practiced skills and are not true paranormal abilities, they are clever tricks.)

We already know that I cannot have a screen between me and the persons. Yet the person can wear clothing. Strange, that, but that is how my experience works. A person is seated with their back facing me so that there is no eyecontact or facial expressions involved, because those could provide clues and I do not use those clues so it is best to disable those. No speaking, touching, or interaction during a test. No contact with the subjects (the persons I look at) and no prior information about subjects prior to the test. All subjects are asked to wear shirts of the same make. I look at their back for a given amount of time, write down my answers. My answers are checked for accuracy. And so it goes. The same format as previous tests with the IIG and at TAM8.

I know from previous tests that I need more time per subjects than I had in the TAM8 test, yet that I cannot do testing for more than an hour in one day or I get exhausted and the experience of medical images shuts down.

More updates will be provided.