A Test for Sandsted

[Jean310]

Best of luck with it Sandsted, hope you can overcome the obstacles.

Oroblanco

I would hope luck doesn't have anything to do with what Sandsted said he was going to do. If it does, then he is likely to turn in results no better than just guessing.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Carl-NC]

I noticed an allusion to some variability in the dowsing results, which I suppose for the showman-skeptic, is to be absolute proof that dowsing does not work;

Not at all... I would expect that even if dowsing worked, there would be variability in results, much like the performances of pro athletes varies. That's why I don't demand 100% success rates... it would be unrealistic. Do you think I'm being unfair in allowing for variability?

however I can point to one particular influence which absolutely gives ME problems - WIND. If it is windy, anything more than the lightest breeze, those L-rods just wave all over and I cannot locate anything so don't even try it when the wind picks up.

Hmmmm... let's think about this... when I'm testing a dowser, I should not demand that the test be performed on a windy day, is that right? In fact, it sounds like I should allow for a delay in testing when conditions are not satisfactory to the dowser. WAIT... I already do that.

I don't know if this could cause a problem with the test of dating coins, as I assume this will be done with a pendulum and indoors, but is something that would be a problem outdoors.

How 'bout earthquakes?

I don't think outside influences can be completely accounted for in a testing like this, which is in effect a guessing game.

Why do you think dowsing is a guessing game?

For example, if the pendulum is one that is attracted to a magnet, or if there are distractions while the test is being conducted, etc.

Why would Sandsted try to use a magnet to mess up his own dowsing? And as far as distractions, he'll have to deal with that... while he's dowsing, I'll be 1000 miles away.

- Carl

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

[=SWR link=]Why do you dowser's have to always put labels on Skeptics?
*********

sheesh, to see "their" actual qualifications to "be" a judge, and to verify that they actually incorporate the entire variable spectrum into the test which is later reviewed by others, not them. Simple no?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Like Marks, I am a sceptic, but of a different kind. His scepticism is directed towards anything he regards as "paranormal", taking as normal that which lies within the limits of ---- "current" -- scientific understanding.

"My scepticism is directed towards the assumption that -------->
"we know enough to proclaim what is possible and what is not".

Tropical Tramp

 

[Oroblanco]

I see a tendency to read more into a post than is actually there. Where exactly did I say that dowsing is guessing? The mention of a magnet was only because many households have kitchen magnets, stuck to refrigerators, etc that sometimes end up on top of a table.

I also see a tendency on the part of our friendly skeptics to include/lump ALL dowsers and dowsing together, as if I am claiming the same feats of intuitive capability as those mentioned by Sandsted for instance. I have already stated that I can't imagine how to do dating of coins, and what I have seen dowsing done on successfully, namely water and electric lines, but to satisfy the skeptics, we dowsers are supposed to ALL be claiming to be magic-masters of the unseen, all claiming to have super-abilities in every imaginable way. No sorry Carl I will not be "lumped" in with anyone else or anyone else's claims, in that I don't know exactly what anyone else CAN or CAN NOT do, since I have not SEEN it done. Unlike some of our friendly skeptics here....

Oroblanco

 

[Carl-NC]

I see a tendency to read more into a post than is actually there. Where exactly did I say that dowsing is guessing?

Right here:

"I don't think outside influences can be completely accounted for in a testing like this, which is in effect a guessing game."

Sandsted is to dowse for the dates... and you called it "guessing." Why do you think his dowsing ability is no better than guessing?

The mention of a magnet was only because many households have kitchen magnets, stuck to refrigerators, etc that sometimes end up on top of a table.

Nothing I can do about that... it's Sandsted's house, and I'm 1000 miles away. If he doesn't want magnets around, he'll have to do something about it.

I also see a tendency on the part of our friendly skeptics to include/lump ALL dowsers and dowsing together, as if I am claiming the same feats of intuitive capability as those mentioned by Sandsted for instance. I have already stated that I can't imagine how to do dating of coins, and what I have seen dowsing done on successfully, namely water and electric lines, but to satisfy the skeptics, we dowsers are supposed to ALL be claiming to be magic-masters of the unseen, all claiming to have super-abilities in every imaginable way. No sorry Carl I will not be "lumped" in with anyone else or anyone else's claims, in that I don't know exactly what anyone else CAN or CAN NOT do, since I have not SEEN it done. Unlike some of our friendly skeptics here....

I haven't lumped anyone together as far as claims go. Different dowsers make different claims, which is why I haven't asked anyone else to dowse the dates on coins. So far, only Sandsted has made that claim.

- Carl

 

[Oroblanco]

"I don't think outside influences can be completely accounted for in a testing like this, which is in effect a guessing game."

Trying to guess the dates of a group of coins, is a guessing game, not dowsing as I understand dowsing.

Oroblanco

 

[Jean310]

"I don't think outside influences can be completely accounted for in a testing like this, which is in effect a guessing game."

Trying to guess the dates of a group of coins, is a guessing game, not dowsing as I understand dowsing.

Oroblanco

You are correct. Guessing dates on concealed coins would be a guessing game, and we could expect the results to either match or be very near to the predicted norm for guessing. However, that is not what Sandsted said he was going to do. He will NOT be guessing the dates on coins, he will be dowsing for the date information. There is a big difference, and since dowsing is claimed to be a lot different from guessing, then his results should be far better than the norm for guessing.

 

[Carl-NC]

Trying to guess the dates of a group of coins, is a guessing game, not dowsing as I understand dowsing.

Why do you keep insisting that Sandsted's dowsing ability is equivalent to guessing? Do you simply not believe that he can dowse?

 

[aarthrj3811]

He will NOT be guessing the dates on coins, he will be dowsing for the date information. There is a big difference, and since dowsing is claimed to be a lot different from guessing, then his results should be far better than the norm for guessing.

You see Jean you have a big flaw in all the numbers that are on here. I don't see an exact number that is ramdom guessing. Like in my thread the numbers were 1 to 5 finds for chance guessing. In any other contest if I get 1 more anythings than the other person I win.....Since Sandsted is Dowsing and you are GUESSING (it may be an educated guess but still a guess) the test is flawed. His results should be far better than the norm for guessing. The only problem is that no one knows what the norm is in real statistics....Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

He will NOT be guessing the dates on coins, he will be dowsing for the date information. There is a big difference, and since dowsing is claimed to be a lot different from guessing, then his results should be far better than the norm for guessing.

You see Jean you have a big flaw in all the numbers that are on here. I don't see an exact number that is ramdom guessing. Like in my thread the numbers were 1 to 5 finds for chance guessing. In any other contest if I get 1 more anythings than the other person I win.....Since Sandsted is Dowsing and you are GUESSING (it may be an educated guess but still a guess) the test is flawed. His results should be far better than the norm for guessing. The only problem is that no one knows what the norm is in real statistics....Art

If anyone needs proof that Art does not understand the posts as they are presented to him, look no further.

This isn't a contest, Art, it's a test. There are no winners or losers, only results. You are right to say that his results should be far better than what can be obtained by guessing, assuming dowsing works better than guessing.

 

[Jean310]

He will NOT be guessing the dates on coins, he will be dowsing for the date information. There is a big difference, and since dowsing is claimed to be a lot different from guessing, then his results should be far better than the norm for guessing.

You see Jean you have a big flaw in all the numbers that are on here. I don't see an exact number that is ramdom[sic] guessing. Like in my thread the numbers were 1 to 5 finds for chance guessing. In any other contest if I get 1 more anythings than the other person I win.....Since Sandsted is Dowsing and you are GUESSING (it may be an educated guess but still a guess) the test is flawed. His results should be far better than the norm for guessing. The only problem is that no one knows what the norm is in real statistics....Art

None of what you just said above has the least bit of coherency. I can only assume that your fingers were placed on the keyboard in error.

 

[ClonedSIM]

He will NOT be guessing the dates on coins, he will be dowsing for the date information. There is a big difference, and since dowsing is claimed to be a lot different from guessing, then his results should be far better than the norm for guessing.

You see Jean you have a big flaw in all the numbers that are on here. I don't see an exact number that is ramdom[sic] guessing. Like in my thread the numbers were 1 to 5 finds for chance guessing. In any other contest if I get 1 more anythings than the other person I win.....Since Sandsted is Dowsing and you are GUESSING (it may be an educated guess but still a guess) the test is flawed. His results should be far better than the norm for guessing. The only problem is that no one knows what the norm is in real statistics....Art

None of what you just said above has the least bit of coherency. I can only assume that your fingers were placed on the keyboard in error.

 

[aarthrj3811]

another great answer....Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

another great answer....Art

Hey, if you ask a stupid question..... 8)
(You know how this goes, right?)

 

[Oroblanco]

Carl wrote: Why do you keep insisting that Sandsted's dowsing ability is equivalent to guessing? Do you simply not believe that he can dowse?

Ah, as usual you are putting words into my mouth. Your test is a guessing test, so why not call it what it is? If you truly want to see if Sandsted's claim of dowsing the dates is true or not, you should have a run of the test with Sandsted GUESSING the dates, then a run of the test with Sandsted dowsing the dates, so you will have something meaningful to compare it to. I can't imagine how one could dowse the dates of coins, but cannot say if Sandsted can do it or not, considering that I have never seen it done.

xupz wrote: Dowsers don't understand the concept at any level.

Xupz, you really DO think you are oh, so superior in intellect to dowsers, don't you? You are truly deluding yourself, something so frequently accused of dowsers. Good luck and good hunting, hope you find the treasure that you seek - you are now set to "ignore"...

Oroblanco

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

=xupz .
The problem is you dowsers can't differentiate between "dowsing" and "guessing". Anyone who says this test is invalid because it's measuring "guessing" is just flat out ignorant. We don't need anyone to be tested at guessing, we can easily calculate the numbers or even run a program/simulation if it's extremely difficult to do it.
***************

Just go to wikipedia and type in "misuse and using incorrect data in statistics". there are 3015 pages. have fun reading about a so so answer science.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.HI I will simply state that in my initial tests of dowsing to see if it warranted further study, I had my wife hide my wedding ring. I successfully found it 9 out of 10 times so either dowsing is working or telepathy, Both are flatly denied in here sooo?

p.s. NO she was not in the room, so the were no subconscious signals given.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Operational definitions are inherently difficult — arguably, even impossible — to apply to mental entities, because these latter are generally understood to be accessible only to the individual who experiences them and are therefore not independently verifiable."
=================
Of course I can dowse! It's quite easy, just not very useful. - Carl


Tropical Tramp

 

[Jean310]

Your test is a guessing test, so why not call it what it is?

No. It is a test of Sandsted's dowsing skills.

If you truly want to see if Sandsted's claim of dowsing the dates is true or not, you should have a run of the test with Sandsted GUESSING the dates, then a run of the test with Sandsted dowsing the dates, so you will have something meaningful to compare it to. Oroblanco

No. There is no reason to have Sandsted guess dates. We already have that data for comparison. PLEASE! Try to understand, and if you can't understand, just accept that what I am saying is correct.

The exercise of putting a human through the process of "guessing" a series of trials in order to obtain GUESSED DATA for comparison, has ALREADY been accomplished. The data has been calculated precisely and has been given here in more than one posting. Further, the data that "might" be obtained from Sandsted guessing could very likely be flawed, when compared to the calculated data. You see, if he guesses and produces data, there is no guarantee he might not skew the guessing unconsciously, and this is a very real possibility.

All Sandsted has to do, is "dowse" the dates; ---we already have precise "guessed" data to compare to, and thus evaluate his claim.

 

[Oroblanco]

Try to understand, and if you can't understand, just accept that what I am saying is correct.


Mmmm yes, 'accept that what I am saying is correct'? Why, if you wish for us (or me personally) to accept what you say is correct, do you not wish to accept a statement of a dowser as correct? What do you think, anyone who dowses must by definition be a moron? Ye gads. You fail to see a problem, between "average" guessing, versus the guessing ability of Sandsted. If you don't see that, then you are not as genius as you might think.

Oroblanco

 

[Jean310]

Try to understand, and if you can't understand, just accept that what I am saying is correct.


Mmmm yes, 'accept that what I am saying is correct'? Why, if you wish for us (or me personally) to accept what you say is correct, do you not wish to accept a statement of a dowser as correct? What do you think, anyone who dowses must by definition be a moron? Ye gads. You fail to see a problem, between "average" guessing, versus the guessing ability of Sandsted. If you don't see that, then you are not as genius as you might think.

Oroblanco

Well, no..... I didn't start out thinking everyone that dowses was a moron, but............... when the compelling evidence is thrown in my face daily, it's hard to keep an open mind about that particular characteristic.

I'll say this ONE more time. Sandsted is NOT guessing the dates on coins. We already have precise data for "average guessing" (using your term). And, that data will be compared to his dowsing results, hopefully to evaluate if his dowsing claim is real or not.

Could you answer me a couple of questions?

1.) Why would Sandsted tell us he could dowse dates on coins, if in fact he was just guessing the dates?

2.) Have you had any exposure at all to a class, or problems concerning simple Probability axioms?

 

[aarthrj3811]

We already have precise data for "average guessing" (using your term).
Is this the joke of the week section?