Re: A Test for Sandsted (long reply, beg your indulgence)
Greetings Carl,
Carl wrote:
That depends on whether Sandsted can dowse, or not. If he can dowse, and choses to dowse the dates instead of just guessing, and is successful, then the test is not one of guessing. If you insist the test cannot be used for dowsing dates on coins, then please explain why it cannot be used for this purpose.
How is it that you
cannot see a problem with the test - for example, let us pre-suppose that Sandsted SUCCEEDS in dowsing more dates of coins than is probable by chance; how can you say that he "dowsed" the dates, and did not simply guess them, and got lucky? I don't mean to sound like Mr Skeptic, but really how could you KNOW that he had dowsed the dates, and NOT simply guessed? This is why I proposed that you run two sets of tests, using random coins from the batch each time (hopefully not coming up with the exact same dates in the same order) and have Sandsted GUESS for one set, then dowse the second set - if he were to succeed in dowsing the dates, you could then compare it to his success (or lack of it) by simply guessing. He might be just a lucky guesser, or have some intuitive abilities, simply comparing his dowsed results to the mathematical chance average only shows his success (or lack of) compared to chance, NOT whether he has demonstrated that his DOWSING resulted in a greater success.
Again, that depends... do you believe that if Sandsted (or anyone else for that matter) guesses the dates, his results will not fall within an expected gaussian distribution as predicted by probability theory? If you believe his guessing would somehow be different, can you explain why you believe this?
Personally I have no idea whether Sandsted will succeed OR fail at your test, as I have mentioned before (no offense here Sandsted) I really
don't know Sandsted, and have never seen him demonstrate his dowsing of the dates of coins, nor of ANYONE ever dowsing the dates of coins. As I understand "dowsing" to be, it is not
necessarily any kind of "paranormal" ability but shows some indications of being an ordinary electrical phenomenon, in which case the use of a pendulum/plumb bob over a map or chart of coin dates is not going to work, as the electrical charge of a coin is a relatively tiny electrical charge. Pendulum "dowsing" has many similarities to what is known as "remote viewing" and NOT any kind of electrical phenomenon, so WOULD require some sort of "paranormal" or "psychic" or ESP abilities, beyond those of the majority of the population. I sure wish Sandsted luck, and will get a chuckle out of this if it proves that he did it successfully (simply because of those extreme skeptics) I do believe that Sandsted's guessing WOULD be a different result from his dowsing of the dates, assuming that he actually dowses the dates. If they were identical or nearly identical, what would that tell you? If they were remarkably different, what would that tell you?
One of the purposes of this thread was to elicit feedback from both skeptics and proponents. For the most part, the proponents have only complained that somehow the test is completely unfair, or that dowsing can never ever be tested. So here's an opportunity for you to think outside the box of preassumed failure...
Somehow you seem to have concluded that I pre-assume failure of the test, when I have repeatedly pointed out that it is a SUCCESS which will be almost meaningless, without having some way to compare Sandsted's dowsing to Sandsted's guessing. I guess that you do not grasp this aspect, or want to lump Sandsted's dowsing with the mathematical average of the entire population, which shows virtually nothing about whether Sandsted had a different result by dowsing than he would have obtained by simply guessing.
If someone were to walk up to you and claim, "I can dowse the dates on coins," what sort of demonstration would you expect them to be able to perform, in order to convince you that they can, indeed, dowse the dates on coins?
I would ask to
SEE IT IN PERSON, not trust to the mails and his word; as I have posted in several threads, repeatedly,
dowsing is something that has to be seen to be believed you are NOT going to be convinced by anything that anyone can SAY about it.
Good luck and good hunting Carl, hope you have fun with the test.
Jean310 wrote:
it is hard to arrive at any other conclusion except perhaps there is some type of understanding impairment, and further rational discussion is pointless.
Well Jean, perhaps there is some sort of understanding impairment, because saying something repeatedly "point blank" does not make it so. How many legs does a cat have, if we call the tail a leg? Four, calling the tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
(A. Lincoln) If anyone here has an understanding impairment, you might look a bit closer to home.
You have put words into my mouth, saying I have insisted that Sandsted is "guessing" yet I have repeatedly pointed out that we have NO way of knowing whether Sandsted dowsed OR guessed, in what anyone outside this forum would define as a guessing game.
Jean, your self-presumed intellectual superiority certainly has been well hidden, perhaps tucked away behind some of those barbs you like to toss?
I have mentioned this before, but you ought to know (assuming you are as well educated as you claim) flinging insults around shows us nothing about those you have insulted, but DOES show us something about
you.
You might have guessed this, but having studied a bit on odds ratios, I
almost never play any lottery. Of course one cannot win if one does not play, but the odds of success are very long indeed. Good luck and good hunting to you Jean, no offense was intended and I hope that you find the treasure that you seek.
"Who are you going to believe, me, or your own eyes?" --Groucho
Oroblanco
