A Test for Sandsted

[Jean310]

Hey Jean....Another non answer...Art

Really?

Guess you're having a little trouble reading a one word answer: Yes and Yes

I'm not surprised..... you often type a response before understanding the original posting. That's why they come off looking so funny.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[aarthrj3811]

Jean...Are we talking about the real Betz study or the so called Betz test that every one else calls the Barn Test?....Art

You see Jean.....I know what the real Betz Study says. I have also read the report of the Barns report which a lot of people refer to as the the Betz Study to confuse people. The only thing that study proved was that Dowsing was a little better than guessing...Art

 

[Oroblanco]

Jean310 wrote: Different? How so?

I already posted this, but if you missed it, the test was not conducted in the field.

Jean, you are aware that a number of different things which were long viewed as "ridiculous" have been proven to be real and effective by science, for examples:

Acupuncture; long held by western medicine to be utterly in-effective, a medical practice that now appears to have originated in the Bronze Age.

Leeches: used from the Dark Ages on but then viewed as a horrific type of voodoo medicine, now they are in use again especially in helping to re-graft limbs which have been severed.

Maggots; used in ancient times to clean terrible wounds of dead tissue, and similarly later held in horror as yet another type of "voodoo" medicine, now in use for the same purpose as in ancient times, removing dead tissue from wounds.

I could go on and on with the list here, from chicken soup for sickness to Willow-bark tea for a headache (same active ingredient as aspirin) but you can see where I am going - simply because science of today cannot prove such a thing as dowsing for water, does not mean that one day science will be able to. Some of the suggested theories hold promise - including the electrical idea, since at least one study showed that human beings are capable of detecting changes in magnetic fields.

Mathematics are great, my first love in fact (until I discovered the opposite sex) but even within mathematics we find many mysteries and even "approximations" (horrors! Bite thy tongue Oroblanco!) such as the value of Pi.

Good luck and good hunting to you Jean, I hope you find the treasure that you seek.

Oroblanco

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

=Jean310 link=topic=60792.msg494082#msg494082 date=1170296470]
***Incidently, if you are going to play the lottery, or keno, it might be good if you have an understanding of Hypergeometric Distributions, not just odds and probability.
**************
Why is it that I never see a statistician's name in the winners list??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


try http//wikipedia.org type in "misuse and using false data in computing statistics". There areover 3015 pages

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]

Real de Tayopa wrote: Why is it that I never see a statistician's name in the winners list??

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

=Jean310

ORO typically, as is commob among the sceptics, she avoided answering your question
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

try http//wikipedia.org type in "misuse and using false data in computing statistics". There areover 3015 pages

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

 

[Jean310]

Jean310 wrote: Different? How so?

Jean, you are aware that a number of different things which were long viewed as "ridiculous" have been proven to be real and effective by science, for examples:

<<<<list snipped>>>>

Oroblanco

Let's not forget the telephone, electricity, radio, TV and space travel. Now, Oro; what do all these things have in common?

Ans: They were all discovered/developed through accepted natural and logical scientific practices involving scientific methodology AND more importantly PEER REVIEW.

The inference you are trying to draw is that dowsing falls in the list. It does not. None of the things, either in your list or mine, were subjected to a development process that took several thousands of years and was accomplished without PEER REVIEW.

The inventor of electricity did not go to a roof top and brag about his invention, and then run and hide in a closet (the analogy here is I've dowsed a Viking ship but don't wish to dig it up). Further, when others tried the same procedures, they could also witness for themselves --the characteristics and the exact phenomenon of electricity (peer review and validation).

Can you see the difference here?

If the practice of dowsing had any merit or practical value, over and above natural intuition, basic research, logical problem solving techniques and best guessing; it would today be taught in schools and universities, and we would not be having this conversation. Additionally, it would have reached the status of total acceptance hundreds of years ago. It Has Not!

To this day, thousands of years after traces of divining rod sketches were found in the tombs of the Egyptians ---the art and practice of dowsing is still cataloged, by any of those not overcome by the compelling action of the human ideomotor response, as nothing more than a simple parlor trick, akin to the Ouija board.

 

[Eddy1H]

I have seen my Dad dowse for water in east texas with two willow branches when they were going to drill a water well, the sticks twisted in his hands and he told the drillers to drill here. Now this could have been luck or skill, I don't think my Dad ever had any special powers of ESP, or I would have got in to a lot more trouble when I was young, but any how the drillers drilled the well and at about three hundred feet the hit good water, the well still produces today and was drilled in 1991. I have tired it with coat hangers and willow branches trying to find coins and rings laying on the floor and it did'nt work for me. Any how thats my 2 cents,
Eddy

 

[Jean310]

I have seen my Dad dowse for water in east texas with two willow branches when they were going to drill a water well, the sticks twisted in his hands and he told the drillers to drill here. Now this could have been luck or skill, I don't think my Dad ever had any special powers of ESP, or I would have got in to a lot more trouble when I was young, but any how the drillers drilled the well and at about three hundred feet the hit good water, the well still produces today and was drilled in 1991. I have tired it with coat hangers and willow branches trying to find coins and rings laying on the floor and it did'nt work for me. Any how thats my 2 cents,
Eddy

Your account of what you saw is, I would say, quite accurate and not unlike thousands of others that have been related over the years. If we don't ignore Occam's Razor, as so many do; there are really very logical and simple explanations.

Water does not occur in small underground streams, rather in most all areas of the world water occurs in aquifers, sometimes many hundreds of square miles in size, something like huge underground lakes. A dowser holds a y-shaped willow branch under tension and grips it rather tightly. When their eyes and their natural intuition tell them (unconsciously) they are over a logical area where water might be found (at some depth), the ideomotor response fires, their hands change position from balanced tension to unbalanced tension, and the willow branch twists in their hands, usually tearing the bark from the branch, and the point of the Y points downward. On some occasions, the Y snaps up, and if the dowser isn't careful it can smack you right in the face. The spot is marked, the well is drilled, and WHA-LA, a suitable quantity of water is found at some depth. Another dowsing success.

Or..... was it?

 

[Eddy1H]

I have seen my Dad dowse for water in east texas with two willow branches when they were going to drill a water well, the sticks twisted in his hands and he told the drillers to drill here. Now this could have been luck or skill, I don't think my Dad ever had any special powers of ESP, or I would have got in to a lot more trouble when I was young, but any how the drillers drilled the well and at about three hundred feet the hit good water, the well still produces today and was drilled in 1991. I have tired it with coat hangers and willow branches trying to find coins and rings laying on the floor and it did'nt work for me. Any how thats my 2 cents,
Eddy

Jean I am not sure about all the logic to what happend, and my Dad was a farmer and far from scientific in any respect, but wheather luck, gut feeling or thet eye grip response he did point out where to punch the well for water, and it produced, it thought it was BS when he told me what he was about to do, never hearing of dowsing before, but I was humbled quickly when I saw water comming up around the augger on the drill rig, Wheather it was fact or fiction in practice, I thought it was pretty cool. Wish I could do it for coin hunting it would sure make things alot more easy and save money on metal detectors,
Thanks for your reply Jean it is as interesting as watching Dad do the little willow branch trick
Eddy

Your account of what you saw is, I would say, quite accurate and not unlike thousands of others that have been related over the years. If we don't ignore Occam's Razor, as so many do; there are really very logical and simple explanations.

Water does not occur in small underground streams, rather in most all areas of the world water occurs in aquifers, sometimes many hundreds of square miles in size, something like huge underground lakes. A dowser holds a y-shaped willow branch under tension and grips it rather tightly. When their eyes and their natural intuition tell them (unconsciously) they are over a logical area where water might be found (at some depth), the ideomotor response fires, their hands change position from balanced tension to unbalanced tension, and the willow branch twists in their hands, usually tearing the bark from the branch, and the point of the Y points downward. On some occasions, the Y snaps up, and if the dowser isn't careful it can smack you right in the face. The spot is marked, the well is drilled, and WHA-LA, a suitable quantity of water is found at some depth. Another dowsing success.

Or..... was it?

 

[Jean310]

Jean I am not sure about all the logic to what happend, and my Dad was a farmer and far from scientific in any respect, but wheather luck, gut feeling or thet eye grip response he did point out where to punch the well for water, and it produced, it thought it was BS when he told me what he was about to do, never hearing of dowsing before, but I was humbled quickly when I saw water comming up around the augger on the drill rig, Wheather it was fact or fiction in practice, I thought it was pretty cool. Wish I could do it for coin hunting it would sure make things alot more easy and save money on metal detectors,
Thanks for your reply Jean it is as interesting as watching Dad do the little willow branch trick
Eddy

A dowser doesn't have to be scientific. This accounting you gave, is almost exactly like many others I've heard, and believe me... any one who was an eye-witness to the event, becomes a "believer" in very short order. What's even better, is this. Those who might be observing the event, ....if they will pick up the dowsing implement, will soon find they can get the same response, usually in the same spot.

But there is a simple explanation for what is going on, and I've already given it to you. Many would like to believe it revolves around signal lines, magnet fields, electromagnetic fields or objects radiating lines of force ---but the truth is, NONE of that is involved in any way.

Still, when you see it done; the whole event is probably the most compelling thing you'll ever witness.

 

[ClonedSIM]

No af1733.....I see a lot of math in this thread. I ask for an exact number and all I get is Odds. I see calulations but when I ask what do they mean I again get odds. Whan I ask what the base for the odds are I get called names. The only mention of any study is for flipping coins. When I ask how many coins I would have to date to beat the random odds I again get odds, MY QUESTION IS......HOW MANY COINS DOES SANDSTED HAVE TO GET CORRECT TO DO BETTER THAN RAMDOM CHANCE?? That should be an easy answer so how about an answer...Art

I would say Sandy would need to correctly dowse 5-6 coin dates to thouroughly show that he has beaten the odds as referred to guessing. Please note that xupz has already answered this question in the same way several days ago when you asked for the first time.

 

[Eddy1H]

Jean I am not sure about all the logic to what happend, and my Dad was a farmer and far from scientific in any respect, but wheather luck, gut feeling or thet eye grip response he did point out where to punch the well for water, and it produced, it thought it was BS when he told me what he was about to do, never hearing of dowsing before, but I was humbled quickly when I saw water comming up around the augger on the drill rig, Wheather it was fact or fiction in practice, I thought it was pretty cool. Wish I could do it for coin hunting it would sure make things alot more easy and save money on metal detectors,
Thanks for your reply Jean it is as interesting as watching Dad do the little willow branch trick
Eddy

Jean you jogged my memory a bit, I do rember my Dad cutting a y branch off a willow tree on his stock tank, and the bark did tear when he got over the place where he wantd the drillers to punch the well, the drillers must have had this happen before because they did not question the spot and began to drill, and If there is an EMF on my dads place or some other force it must be a good one, but I really think it was just Dad and his stick. I can rest well with that explanation, and have no doubt that the majic in his hands is a valad tool to survive for no telling how many generations, He told me he was tought this by his Dad in Mississippi in the late 30's when he was a kid. Go figure, every thing aint scientific, I know this old farmer wasn't, he was just a farmer needing water and knew how to find it, and he did.
Eddy

A dowser doesn't have to be scientific. This accounting you gave, is almost exactly like many others I've heard, and believe me... any one who was an eye-witness to the event, becomes a "believer" in very short order. What's even better, is this. Those who might be observing the event, ....if they will pick up the dowsing implement, will soon find they can get the same response, usually in the same spot.

But there is a simple explanation for what is going on, and I've already given it to you. Many would like to believe it revolves around signal lines, magnet fields, electromagnetic fields or objects radiating lines of force ---but the truth is, NONE of that is involved in any way.

Still, when you see it done; the whole event is probably the most compelling thing you'll ever witness.

 

[aarthrj3811]

I would say Sandy would need to correctly dowse 5-6 coin dates to thouroughly show that he has beaten the odds as referred to guessing.

I love these words af1733....I would say..Ok got that...correctly dowse 5-6 coins....got that to...thouroughly show.........beaten the odds referred to guessing...
What is the number that you say that he has to beat to thourouhly show that he can beat what you call guessing..........Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

I would say Sandy would need to correctly dowse 5-6 coin dates to thouroughly show that he has beaten the odds as referred to guessing.

I love these words af1733....I would say..Ok got that...correctly dowse 5-6 coins....got that to...thouroughly show.........beaten the odds referred to guessing...
What is the number that you say that he has to beat to thourouhly show that he can beat what you call guessing..........Art

Wow, even when you get a question answered a second time you still just can't accept it, can you?
Fine, if Sandy dowses 6 correct dates he has beaten the odds.

 

[aarthrj3811]

af1733....Thanks ....your math shows the number to be 5 or 50%...Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

af1733....Thanks ....your math shows the number to be 5 or 50%...Art

That's wonderful Art, but I said 6 correct. What do you mean by "your math shows the number to be 5 or 50%?"

 

[Jean310]

The number I will go with is (I believe) the same that would be required by the TBS in order to pass the Preliminary Test before going for the Randi $1M.

That would be 7 or more correct - to show compelling evidence for the dowsing claim.

The reason for choosing 7 is because it has a probability for a chance result of just slightly greater than 1 in 1000.

Although, 6 would be a very good score too.
_________________________________________________

Further, I will go on record and say that, Sandsted's results as well as all of the individual guesses recorded here will generally fall in the range of 0, 1, 2 or 3 correct. Though I would not rule out 4 correct as a possible result. I'm basing this prediction strictly on a "rough" estimate of the total number of people involved in the "guessing" (and dowsing). The more people "guessing", the more likely it would be to see one of the higher numbers.

For instance, if 1000 people were "guessing", it would not be surprising to see someone get 7 correct JUST FROM GUESSING (no dowsing involved).

 

[ClonedSIM]

The number I will go with is (I believe) the same that would be required by the TBS in order to pass the Preliminary Test before going for the Randi $1M.

That would be 7 or more correct - to show compelling evidence for the dowsing claim.

The reason for choosing 7 is because it has a probability for a chance result of just slightly greater than 1 in 1000.

Although, 6 would be a very good score too.
_________________________________________________

Further, I will go on record and say that, Sandsted's results as well as all of the individual guesses recorded here will generally fall in the range of 0, 1, 2 or 3 correct. Though I would not rule out 4 correct as a possible result. I'm basing this prediction strictly on a "rough" estimate of the total number of people involved in the "guessing" (and dowsing). The more people "guessing", the more likely it would be to see one of the higher numbers.

For instance, if 1000 people were "guessing", it would not be surprising to see someone get 7 correct JUST FROM GUESSING (no dowsing involved).

6 or 7 would be the result I would like to see, as well. Either of these would preclude guessing for the most part, and give up a nice figure to work from in any future testing should coin-dating dowsing turn out to be an actual skill.
I'll go ahead and state that my estimate is 1-2 correct from Sandy, but no more than that.

 

[aarthrj3811]

That's wonderful Art, but I said 6 correct. What do you mean by "your math shows the number to be 5 or 50%?"

Gee af1733...You don't want to be locked into a number? Let see now...If it takes 6 to beat Random Chances 6 minus 1 = 5...So 5 is what you guess the odds of Random Chances to be. Now Jean says it would be 7..7-1 = 6...Now we have 2 magic numbers.

Further, I will go on record and say that, Sandsted's results as well as all of the individual guesses recorded here will generally fall in the range of 0, 1, 2 or 3 correct. Though I would not rule out 4 correct as a possible result

Now we get 4 more magic numbers..

I'll go ahead and state that my estimate is 1-2 correct from Sandy, but no more than that

And then we get another set of magic numbers

So now we are back to 0 to 6 as our magic numbers. I can see why no one can beat Random chance....It's a moving target and a Random guess as to what the results would be??/Art