A Test for Sandsted

[ClonedSIM]

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

Wow... Your lack of logic and any mathematical skill whatsoever astounds me, Art. I honestly don't even know where to begin to explain how incorrect you are....

First, don't subtract 1 from the estimates Jean and I made. Why would you? I said Sandy would need 6, and Jean said 7. Those are the number of correct dates Sandy would need to dowse in order to beat random chance. You wanted an individual number and you got it. I was giving Sandy an easier pass saying I only expected 6, and Jean was a bit tougher with 7, but either one of these would result in Sandy significantly beating the odds of chance. And, again, xupz gave you these exact same numbers a week ago.

Another mistake you made was "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..."
You're forgetting that it's possible that he get none correct, which would result in 0. Don't twist our words or attempt anything math-related from here on out.

And when Jean and I said: 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 and I'll go ahead and state that my estimate is 1-2 correct from Sandy, but no more than that.
we were giving you our estimates on how many he would actually get correct. Do you understand?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Jean310]

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

Art................. give it up.

Do you have any idea at all, what point you are trying to make? No.... seriously! Do you?

You asked for numbers. You got them, and then you go off on some tirade trying to belittle and find fault with the numbers you got.

I gave you ONE number, that I thought would be very compelling evidence to support Sandy's dowsing claim. 7

Next, I stated basically what we are ACTUALLY going to see as REAL results, both from Sandy, and from all the guessing here. I said that was going to be a range of numbers, 0, 1, 2, and 3.

Of course there are 4 numbers there, because ALL of those numbers are close to one another in the actual distribution for the expected results, from random selection.

If you had even an infinitesimally small understanding of Probability axioms, you would never had made the response you did.

Wow! Talk about engaging your fingers before your brain................

If you're bent on countering everyones' numbers --why don't you do it in such a way that it makes some semblance of sense? (I think that was rhetorical.... I'm not even sure anymore)

 

[aarthrj3811]

The chances of guessing a coin flip is 50%. Now if I flip a coin 100 times and I guess it right 51 times I beat the chances. Or did I ? ...Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

If you're bent on countering everyones' numbers --why don't you do it in such a way that it makes some semblance of sense? (I think that was rhetorical.... I'm not even sure anymore)

The chances of guessing a coin flip is 50%. Now if I flip a coin 100 times and I guess it right 51 times I beat the chances. Or did I ? ...Art

Apparently you should have said it was rhetorical......

 

[Jean310]

The chances of guessing a coin flip is 50%. Now if I flip a coin 100 times and I guess it right 51 times I beat the chances. Or did I ? ...Art

Oh, dear..... sigh...........

Errrrrr.... aaaaaaa... is that 51 times in a row?

Any single coin flip IS a probability of 0.5 or Odds of 1 in 2.

A string of correct guesses is entirely different. (But, I won't confuse you any more than you already are, and I'll just assume you meant 51 times out of the entire 100 flips, and not necessarily consecutive.)

I suggest you do it.... and see what you get for results.

Now, I have a question for you. If you flip a (fair) coin 100 times, what would you estimate the difference would be between Heads and Tails obtained from the 100 flips. Possible answers would be 0, 1, 2, ....5, 10, 20, 30...

Do it, and find out for yourself, but let me know what you think before you do the test.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey Jean....This is what your odds are telling me.....If I bury 10 metal targets 2 feet deep in a field. I take a person to the field and hand him a Metal Detector and tell him to find the targets. By pure chance guessing he will locate 7 of the targets. Now please explain to me why this is not correct...Art

 

[Jean310]

Hey Jean....This is what your odds are telling me.....If I bury 10 metal targets 2 feet deep in a field. I take a person to the field and hand him a Metal Detector and tell him to find the targets. By pure chance guessing he will locate 7 of the targets. Now please explain to me why this is not correct...Art

::::shaking my head, looking up at the ceiling for Divine Guidance::::

(and none is coming)

Where in the world did you get that from?

Art, you are hopeless.

AF........... Xupz............. He's all yours. I'm done. It was fun for awhile, but it isn't fun anymore.

Fess up, Art. You didn't quit school, ....you got thrown out, and told not to come back, didn't you.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Hey Jean....This is what your odds are telling me.....If I bury 10 metal targets 2 feet deep in a field. I take a person to the field and hand him a Metal Detector and tell him to find the targets. By pure chance guessing he will locate 7 of the targets. Now please explain to me why this is not correct...Art

Tell me something, Art. If he's guessing the locations, then why did you give him a metal detector?

And do you honestly think he will find 7 of the 10 targets by guessing alone? Or is that your estimate with him using the detector?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Tell me something, Art. If he's guessing the locations, then why did you give him a metal detector?

And do you honestly think he will find 7 of the 10 targets by guessing alone? Or is that your estimate with him using the detector?

Just threw that in so the guy wound not look foolish trying to find buried targets with out the help of tools...I think that he would find 0 targets by guessing alone. Your magic number is 7 so do you honestly think anyone can guess 7 out of 10 targets?

 

[ClonedSIM]

Tell me something, Art. If he's guessing the locations, then why did you give him a metal detector?

And do you honestly think he will find 7 of the 10 targets by guessing alone? Or is that your estimate with him using the detector?

Just threw that in so the guy wound not look foolish trying to find buried targets with out the help of tools...I think that he would find 0 targets by guessing alone. Your magic number is 7 so do you honestly think anyone can guess 7 out of 10 targets?

Wow, Art, you sure have some new math style of going on here, but I'll play along one more time.

Okay, be sure to read this carefully.... Getting 7 out of 10 targets by trying to guess them is nearly impossible. BUT....Sandy is not guessing, he's dowsing. This is why the coin test does not translate to guessing. Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Okay, be sure to read this carefully.... Getting 7 out of 10 targets by trying to guess them is nearly impossible. BUT....Sandy is not guessing, he's dowsing. This is why the coin test does not translate to guessing. Why is this so hard to understand?

Hey af1733....May because every thing you talk about is Guessing stats....If Sandsted is Dowsing where are the Dowsing stats. Could it be that there are none. What is the number that a DOWSER would have to correctly date to be better than chance guessing? But thank you as I have learned a lot from this thread...The studies of Dowsing you claim they failed is easy to understand now. They were judged by guessing stats and when they were better than chance guessing it was determined that they didn't beat the odds by a big enough margin....Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

Okay, be sure to read this carefully.... Getting 7 out of 10 targets by trying to guess them is nearly impossible. BUT....Sandy is not guessing, he's dowsing. This is why the coin test does not translate to guessing. Why is this so hard to understand?

Hey af1733....May because every thing you talk about is Guessing stats....If Sandsted is Dowsing where are the Dowsing stats. Could it be that there are none. What is the number that a DOWSER would have to correctly date to be better than chance guessing? But thank you as I have learned a lot from this thread...The studies of Dowsing you claim they failed is easy to understand now. They were judged by guessing stats and when they were better than chance guessing it was determined that they didn't beat the odds by a big enough margin....Art

Here's the problem with your logic, Art. If the number once could expect to get by guessing these dates and the number one should expect by dowsing the dates are the same, then how is dowsing better than guessing?

You and every other dowser have been adamant in saying that dowsing is better than guessing. Is it just barely better than guessing, or not at all better?

Let's ask this of you, Art. You are trying to understand, and this will help everyone involved.

If you had 100 boxes, and 10 of those boxes had gold bars in them, guessing, statistically, would give you a 10% success rate of picking a box with a gold bar on each attempt if you had 10 guesses. In other words, by guessing, you would find a gold bar 1 out of every 10 guesses. How many bars could you dowse if you had 10 attempts to dowse the boxes?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey Judy...I got it...Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

Gee xupz.....We have had endless posts about odds of guessing....They have nothing to do with this test...If he gets 2 correct he has done what he said he could do....If he gets 5 or 6 right he has done what he says is his best. Jean says he should get 7 to prove his point. Guess What ... It's up to Sandsted to tell us how he did...Art

 

[xupz]

Gee xupz.....We have had endless posts about odds of guessing....They have nothing to do with this test...If he gets 2 correct he has done what he said he could do....If he gets 5 or 6 right he has done what he says is his best. Jean says he should get 7 to prove his point. Guess What ... It's up to Sandsted to tell us how he did...Art

Believe what you want, you're still wrong and it's fact.

 

[Carl-NC]

Carl wrote: Going into this test, I knew that he might succeed by luck, and that such a success might then be used as absolute proof of dowsing. But with the persistent denials that there is any way to test dowsing, I thought it more important to demonstrate how an objective test is carried out.

Then you do see my problem with this test - that a success might be taken as "proof" of dowsing, when it really could have been simple luck.

Sure, I understand the issue. Always have. I've said many times that a single test cannot provide proof of dowsing.

Do you understand why a single "guess-test" does not provide any useful information?

...however for some reason we keep hearing how "trials" and "tests" have shown dowsing to be a failure, none of which were done in the manner of Betz's study which tested traditional water-finding dowsing, which is the only type I have seen and done successfully.

But there are lots and lots of kinds of dowsing, and a specific test must be designed for each kind. Ferinstance, this is a treasure forum, and most dowsers who visit here dowse for buried treasure. Namely, gold. So if you want to test a gold dowser, you probably should strongly consider using gold as a target.

I agree, that if I wanted to test a water dowser, I would design a test that involves dowsing for water. If the dowser specifies groundwater, then I also agree that the test absolutely must involve drilling wells, which is expensive. Generally, I'm not all that interested in testing water dowsers, because of the expense and difficulty.

If dowsing works, it will have to be better than chance.

You seem to be lumping Sandsted's claim of dowsing DATES OF COINS as "dowsing" including every type of dowsing, including finding water, dowsing maps, etc. Is that what you want to say?

Not sure what you mean... In general, if any kind of dowsing works, then it will need to be better than chance*. If it's not, then it's not useful. If the Colts were to hire a psychic linebacker to call the coin toss in every away game, and he only got it right about half the time, then he better be a darned good linebacker, 'cause he would be a lousy psychic.

Sandsted's claim of "dowsing dates" is a claim of "dowsing." It happens to be an example of dowsing where the exact same exercise using random guessing has a statistically predictable outcome, just like the coin toss. If dowsing the dates has about the same outcome as guessing the dates, then dowsing dates is not useful.

- Carl

*Assuming that observation and intuition are accounted for.

 

[Carl-NC]

In a previous post I listed the odds of guessing coins per the conditions of this test. They were:

+/-0:
M=0: 77.63%
M=1: 19.79%
M=2: 2.33%

+/-1:
M=0: 45.86%
M=1: 36.49%
M=2: 13.45%
M=3: 3.02%

+/-2:
M=0: 26.31%
M=1: 36.36%
M=2: 23.33%
M=3: 9.16%
M=4: 2.44%

+/-3:
M=0: 14.61%
M=1: 29.50%
M=2: 27.73%
M=3: 16.00%
M=4: 6.28%
M=5: 1.76%
M=6: 0.36%

I also mentioned a web-based statistic calculator which allows us to simulate the test and check the accuracy of the calculations. So I generated 101 sets of numbers, and used the first set as the "standard" against which the other sets are compared. I then scored the results as to how close to correct each date was.

As an example, here are two sets of dates, the first being the standard:

1960 1969 1963 1972 1980 1990 1998 1995 1966 1999
1991 1961 1992 1977 1980 1986 1974 1960 1971 1996

There was only one exact hit, 1980. Besides that, the last date is within 3 years of being correct. The data for 100 trials is as follows:

Hits: 0 1 2 3 4 5
----------------------------------
+/- 0: 74 24 2 0 0 0
+/- 1: 43 37 19 1 0 0
+/- 2: 25 40 27 6 2 0
+/- 3: 16 36 30 12 5 1

There is pretty good correlation with the calculated values, but not exact. Ferinstance, theory predicted 77.63 zero hits for exact guessing, but the sim result was 74. Should the simulated results exactly match prediction? Of course not, there will be variation in run-to-run, even for 100 cumulative runs.

Here are the distribution plots, for those who are on the edge of their seats:



More later...

- Carl

 

[Oroblanco]

SWR try reading page THREE of THIS THREAD. You threw me for a moment there, when you said that you had looked everywhere in this thread and could find no Eddy. "Make this stuff up" indeed. Try starting HERE: http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,60792.msg495727.html#msg495727

Here was the post in reply:

Eddy wrote: I know this old farmer wasn't, he was just a farmer needing water and knew how to find it, and he did.


That is just too much for a skeptic to accept, though I believe it 100 % - and Jean, if you believe water exists in gigantic vast aquifers everywhere, I cheerfully invite you to come here and just drill or dig a hole any place you like within a 1/4 mile by 3/4 mile area, and if you find water (must be fresh, and a flow that a well driller would accept or even as low as 5 gpm) I will hand you $500 on the spot. Wink I won't be mad either!

Oroblanco

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. ~ancient Hebrew proverb

 

[Jean310]

Is it just too much for you dowser types to try an play nice and use some etiquette for a change? The repeated abuse of quote/reply is what got your Amigo on ignore, and you are heading straight down that same highway

As a dog that returneth to his vomit, so is a fool that repeateth his folly ~ Ancient Hebrew Proverb

Whenever, I look at this forum, I remember how I struggled with "you know who's" mix-master postings; and I utter a silent little Thank You to the programmer who wrote this BBS, and had the forethought to include the little Ignore Button. That same programmer went to the effort to make a neat little Quote utility, just so people wouldn't have to go find Msg #s, times and names, and do a bunch of their own cutting and hacking. And, you know what....... I'll bet it gets used okay on all the other forums.

Is there message here LOL

 

[Jean310]

In a previous post I listed the odds of guessing coins per the conditions of this test. They were:

+/-0:
M=0: 77.63%
M=1: 19.79%
M=2: 2.33%

+/-1:
M=0: 45.86%
M=1: 36.49%
M=2: 13.45%
M=3: 3.02%

+/-2:
M=0: 26.31%
M=1: 36.36%
M=2: 23.33%
M=3: 9.16%
M=4: 2.44%

+/-3:
M=0: 14.61%
M=1: 29.50%
M=2: 27.73%
M=3: 16.00%
M=4: 6.28%
M=5: 1.76%
M=6: 0.36%

I also mentioned a web-based statistic calculator which allows us to simulate the test and check the accuracy of the calculations. So I generated 101 sets of numbers, and used the first set as the "standard" against which the other sets are compared. I then scored the results as to how close to correct each date was.

As an example, here are two sets of dates, the first being the standard:

1960 1969 1963 1972 1980 1990 1998 1995 1966 1999
1991 1961 1992 1977 1980 1986 1974 1960 1971 1996

There was only one exact hit, 1980. Besides that, the last date is within 3 years of being correct. The data for 100 trials is as follows:

Hits: 0 1 2 3 4 5
----------------------------------
+/- 0: 74 24 2 0 0 0
+/- 1: 43 37 19 1 0 0
+/- 2: 25 40 27 6 2 0
+/- 3: 16 36 30 12 5 1

There is pretty good correlation with the calculated values, but not exact. Ferinstance, theory predicted 77.63 zero hits for exact guessing, but the sim result was 74. Should the simulated results exactly match prediction? Of course not, there will be variation in run-to-run, even for 100 cumulative runs.


More later...

- Carl

Thanks, Carl. Looks like an excellent "fit" to me.

Can you say yet, at what stage (or status) the real test is in?