A Test for Sandsted

[Jean310]

Now since Carl says the odds are 14,545,440 you divide that by 69,696 and you come up with the equivalent of over 208 square miles of search area and you would need to be within the pencil point accuracy in order to pass his test.

It's entirely possible I missed something, but I don't really see where Carl actually indicated a Pass or Fail condition to the test in discussion here. About all he did was to indicate to me, his calculated odds for guessing 6 dates correctly. Even then he said he would verify his value.

Reading back through this thread, it appears the test (if it does come about) will involve a + and - range, from the date guessed. If that turns out to be one of the stipulations, the odds will be quite different from what Carl and I were talking about.

Jean

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[ClonedSIM]

[=. I personally believe that it's more of a laughable pretense they use for not attempting the challenge, or even applying for it.

***********

Moning Af, when are you applying for a place on the Olympic Gymnastic team ?

Tropical Tramp

And this means what, exactly?

 

[Mike(Mont)]

I think most map dowsers will tell you a pencil point accuracy on a quadrangle map (basically within ten feet) is not a reasonable expectation. So if you figured within one hundred feet your search area to reach nearly 15 million to one odds would be over 20,000 square miles. And if you are probably (read: you will be) asked to repeat the test now the area is increased to over twice the land mass on the entire planet. Gee, why don't they just make it within 150 feet (still a very reasonable expectation for map dowsing accuracy) and the test and a repeat will cover the entire surface of the Earth?

 

[Jean310]

I think most map dowsers will tell you a pencil point accuracy on a quadrangle map (basically within ten feet) is not a reasonable expectation. So if you figured within one hundred feet your search area to reach nearly 15 million to one odds would be over 20,000 square miles. And if you are probably (read: you will be) asked to repeat the test now the area is increased to over twice the land mass on the entire planet. Gee, why don't they just make it within 150 feet (still a very reasonable expectation for map dowsing accuracy) and the test and a repeat will cover the entire surface of the Earth?

Not familiar with what map dowsers believe is a reasonable accuracy level to achieve. The subject of map dowsing accuracy seems a little out of place in this thread, unless of course Sandsted will be utilizing map dowsing in some way. From what I read of the test, I thought he would be actually handling the 10 packaged-coins he expects to dowse the dates of; so I don't see any correlation between that and a talent for map dowsing. Did I come in late and miss something?

 

[Jean310]

American Heritage Dictionary
skep·tic
One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
ob·jec·tive
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.


Using those definitions....I find it hard to use one to apply to the other....?? ......Although.....one can always assume objectivity, but in doing so....wouldn't any results/confirmations be assumed, also?

Judy

I see your point, and it is well taken, especially if the two definitions are viewed separately as you have iterated them. However, if you look at the definitions as you have them; there is nothing in the definition of a skeptic that indicates they could not have the attribute of objectivity. Likewise, there is nothing in the definition of objective that precludes it from being something a skeptical person might exhibit.

And, that is my point. They are not mutually exclusive (at least I don't believe they are).

Granted, not every confirmed skeptic can boast the quality of objectivity, but neither can we rule out the idea that a skeptical person can also be a highly objective one as well.

Jean

 

[Jean310]

American Heritage Dictionary
skep·tic
One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
ob·jec·tive
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.


Using those definitions....I find it hard to use one to apply to the other....?? ......Although.....one can always assume objectivity, but in doing so....wouldn't any results/confirmations be assumed, also?

Judy

I see your point, and it is well taken, especially if the two definitions are viewed separately as you have iterated them. However, if you look at the definitions as you have them; there is nothing in the definition of a skeptic that indicates they could not have the attribute of objectivity. Likewise, there is nothing in the definition of objective that precludes it from being something a skeptical person might exhibit.

And, that is my point. They are not mutually exclusive (at least I don't believe they are).

Granted, not every confirmed skeptic can boast the quality of objectivity, but neither can we rule out the idea that a skeptical person can also be a highly objective one as well.

Jean

Agreed.....

It would appear that there is a mental element here to consider...eh?


Judy

Yup. Probably a safe assumption. (very few things in this world are clearly black or white)

Jean

 

[Mike(Mont)]

My reply was intended to make a comparison as to the astronomically high odds involved. You don't need map dowsing, you could just forget the map and use dowsing, but there are so many square miles involved it's not a practical way to view it. In my opinion the entire skeptic contest scheme is an attempt to hide what is involved. You've seen the posts: just guess the number and go collect the million dollars. It's so easy. If you can't win the million then you can't dowse, etc. So I'm here to not only make the point that it is not as easy as the skeptics want you to believe. If Carl says you have to repeat the test, the odds go up to over 200 trillion. So I hope people ask themself why anyone would try to promote this as easy unless they were intentionally trying to deceive? Why do people use such a test as proof that dowsing can't possibly work? The test doesn't prove anything about dowsing but it says plenty about the promoters.

 

[Jean310]

My reply was intended to make a comparison as to the astronomically high odds involved. You don't need map dowsing, you could just forget the map and use dowsing, but there are so many square miles involved it's not a practical way to view it. In my opinion the entire skeptic contest scheme is an attempt to hide what is involved. You've seen the posts: just guess the number and go collect the million dollars. It's so easy. If you can't win the million then you can't dowse, etc. So I'm here to not only make the point that it is not as easy as the skeptics want you to believe. If Carl says you have to repeat the test, the odds go up to over 200 trillion. So I hope people ask themself why anyone would try to promote this as easy unless they were intentionally trying to deceive? Why do people use such a test as proof that dowsing can't possibly work? The test doesn't prove anything about dowsing but it says plenty about the promoters.

Well.... you've made several statements and voiced some opinions. I'll just address a couple, if you don't mind.

If you believe the challenges and tests are an attempt to hide something; can you verbalize the exact things you believe are being hidden and give a little insight as to how you arrived at this conclusion?

Has Carl stipulated "repeats" of tests in the past? I came in late, so I'm sure I must have missed something. Please elaborate.

Then, you asked a couple of questions; "Why do people use such a test as proof that dowsing can't possibly work? The test doesn't prove anything about dowsing but it says plenty about the promoters."

Personally, I don't think people use a test to prove dowsing can't possibly work. Rather, a well-structured test is usually what it takes to effectively evaluate a "claim". When someone says they can dowse, I think that statement (in and of itself) clearly infers that they believe they can ascertain information, quantities, qualities and locations about hidden objects AND that they can obtain these data with a success/accuracy rate, which on an average, will be better than what could be expected from simple guessing. That is a real "claim". Perhaps an inferred claim, but nevertheless a "claim". (If that isn't what they are claiming, then why bother with dowsing?)

Then you said the test says plenty about the promoters. I agree completely. Well-structured tests utilizing statistical analysis and attempting to reach definite conclusions indicate to me the promoters are really interested in verifying and testing the "claims". It also says they are using the best tools they have for arriving at an accurate conclusion. If the "claim" can be proven and validated, then the test will show that validity. Or, the test results may show the "claim" to be unsubstantiated. In any event, the ultimate goal is to reach a meaningful conclusion.

I get the impression you don't feel the structure of the tests outlined to this point, can fairly evaluate a dowsing claim. I assume from what I've read so far, that you are some sort of a dowser. If that's true, is there a "claim" that you can verbalize (concerning your dowsing ability) and then explain a simple test that can validate your "claim"?

Jean

 

[Sandsted]

Sorry I haven't been able to post. Business called me away from the access of a computer.

Anyway...I'll pick up where things are.

"Are they going to assemble a random group of...say 100 individuals....and have them guess the locations of this 'object'...under the same exact conditions as to which the dowser will be tested?"

I believe this has been suggested before, but...not to the extent of 100 individuals. The statistics based for random guessing are completely random and are not the "random guessing" done by humans...which would obviously be biased and not totally random.


"Personally, I don't think people use a test to prove dowsing can't possibly work."

Carl has directly stated that the purpose of his test is to disprove dowsing and LRL machine manufacturers so that people aren't deceived by them. He has stated that his test doesn't address the question whether dowsing or works and he has stated that he is not looking for an answer. I don't mean this in great critisism, these topics have been discussed. The purpose is not questionable.


"In any event, the ultimate goal is to reach a meaningful conclusion."

The goal is to reach the premade conclusion. The goal is to follow the tests done in the mid-1700s. The goal is predetermined...this has been confessed.

For these reasons I have judged these tests unscientific for reasons being that there is no scientific attempt to understand dowsing...just disprove it. I call them unscientific because the goal is predetermined.


Anyway the coin test will be difficult, but even though I disagree with it I submit to it in the hopes to weaken the whinning, "...put your money where your mouth is." Even though under the conditions of the test I have no money.

Happy new year

 

[aarthrj3811]

What sample group is used to base the statistics on.... of guessing?

Are they going to assemble a random group of...say 100 individuals....and have them guess the locations of this "object"...under the same exact conditions as to which the dowser will be tested?

This is what I have been saying for years.....Where are the statistics? I have tested 100 people but it was not Double Blind. I don't think anyone read my mind. If they read my mind it sure didn't show up in the results...Art

 

[Jean310]

Anyway the coin test will be difficult, but even though I disagree with it I submit to it in the hopes to weaken the whinning, "...put your money where your mouth is." Even though under the conditions of the test I have no money.

Happy new year

I admire your decision to go ahead with the coin test.

What is your specific claim that will be tested?
Do you have a certain number of coins that you feel confident you will be able to dowse the dates?
Will you be working to a range, rather than having to hit a specific date (i.e. plus or minus 3 years)?

Based on the conditions of the test, as I have found them discussed here; wherein 10 coins will be selected at random from a field of 40, have you calculated the Probability of the level of results that could be expected from strictly guessing (no dowsing talent), and have you selected a number significantly higher in order to demonstrate a real dowsing talent?

I assume you've done this exercise before, and have some confidence level that you've worked to in the past. What was your best score? What was your worst score?

Jean

 

[Sandsted]

I believe the standard is within 3 years now...am I wrong?

I've done this exercise a few times...it's not the easiest thing to do, but it is the only thing I believe I can do without having to leave my home. Anyway....best score (if you count within 3 years) out of 10 or 11 coins was probably 5 or 6. Worst score probably 2. I don't set this up for 10 coins a lot. Every once and a while since we've conversed about this test I just happen to see a coin laying there so I grab it and see if I can date it. Which...my accuracy I would believe to be 40%...can't really recall on those.

Anyway, I believe any amount of success will be very difficult. When testing myself alone...whether I do it correctly or not will be between myself and no other. I'm not under the conditions of having to prove one's self.

Here that's different.

 

[Jean310]

I believe the standard is within 3 years now...am I wrong?

I could be wrong, but I think the range of plus or minus 3 years (a total span of 7 years) is strictly your call. You could probably say you would do it to plus or minus 1, or 2 years too.

I've done this exercise a few times...it's not the easiest thing to do, but it is the only thing I believe I can do without having to leave my home. Anyway....best score (if you count within 3 years) out of 10 or 11 coins was probably 5 or 6. Worst score probably 2. I don't set this up for 10 coins a lot. Every once and a while since we've conversed about this test I just happen to see a coin laying there so I grab it and see if I can date it. Which...my accuracy I would believe to be 40%...can't really recall on those.

Anyway, I believe any amount of success will be very difficult. When testing myself alone...whether I do it correctly or not will be between myself and no other. I'm not under the conditions of having to prove one's self.

Here that's different.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you saying (your claim) that you can consistently dowse the dates of coins and produce results that are definitely better than what could be expected from simple guessing?

If that is what this is all about, then the test will have an associated level of performance that is consistent with guessing, and you will will need to produce a significantly higher score, in order to validate your claim of dowsing talent. Is that true?

Jean

 

[aarthrj3811]

If that is what this is all about, then the test will have an associated level of performance that is consistent with guessing, and you will will need to produce a significantly higher score, in order to validate your claim of dowsing talent. Is that true?

You would know the answer if you would study some old Dowsing Records. Many tests are reported on a lot of different subjects. The conclusions are written that the Dowsers were better than chance guessing but was not significantly higher so the test is in-conclusive and more study is needed. Is there some numbers some to figure in significantly into the test or is that just someones guess....Art

 

[Sandsted]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you saying (your claim) that you can consistently dowse the dates of coins and produce results that are definitely better than what could be expected from simple guessing?

I have done this better then guessing, more often than random guessing should be. But under the conditions where I have to prove myself...I don't know if it can be done. Plus or minus 3 years sounds good, that is what I would probably normally call a success...well at least call it close.

 

[Jean310]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you saying (your claim) that you can consistently dowse the dates of coins and produce results that are definitely better than what could be expected from simple guessing?

I have done this better then guessing, more often than random guessing should be.

That's neat. When doing this dating before, were you aware of the relative level of performance that guessing should produce, and you were significantly better than that level?

But under the conditions where I have to prove myself...I don't know if it can be done. Plus or minus 3 years sounds good, that is what I would probably normally call a success...well at least call it close.

Are you thinking it would just be the added pressure, or why do you think a true dowsing talent could be subject to large swings in accuracy?

Also, just a suggestion..... It would probably be good if you did the 10 trials (constituting one test) 3 or 4 times.

Jean

 

[Sandsted]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you saying (your claim) that you can consistently dowse the dates of coins and produce results that are definitely better than what could be expected from simple guessing?

I have done this better then guessing, more often than random guessing should be.

That's neat. When doing this dating before, were you aware of the relative level of performance that guessing should produce, and you were significantly better than that level?

But under the conditions where I have to prove myself...I don't know if it can be done. Plus or minus 3 years sounds good, that is what I would probably normally call a success...well at least call it close.

Are you thinking it would just be the added pressure, or why do you think a true dowsing talent could be subject to large swings in accuracy?

Also, just a suggestion..... It would probably be good if you did the 10 trials (constituting one test) 3 or 4 times.

Jean

Well...when dating before I'd get it right maybe...well, at least a lot more then I'd expect to randomly guessing but...I'm not really sure.


"Are you thinking it would just be the added pressure, or why do you think a true dowsing talent could be subject to large swings in accuracy?"


I don't fully understand this question...

 

[Jean310]

Well...when dating before I'd get it right maybe...well, at least a lot more then I'd expect to randomly guessing but...I'm not really sure.


"Are you thinking it would just be the added pressure, or why do you think a true dowsing talent could be subject to large swings in accuracy?"


I don't fully understand this question...

Ummmmm... that's kind of what I was wondering. It's really important that you fully understand what "guessing" could produce, and the only way to know is to calculate the Probabilities associated with a given set of test parameters. If you don't do that, it's real easy to have a gut feeling that you are doing something better than guessing, when in fact your results might be completely in line with just guessing.

My other question has to do with how confident you feel about your talent. Is it something that you feel real confident about being able to repeat, on demand, or is it something that is very delicate and might be subject to wild swings in performance. I guess if it were me, I wouldn't consider making a claim unless I was pretty sure about the repeatability of my talent.

But, that's just what I would do.....

Jean

 

[Sandsted]

Well dowsing for coins...I don't have a whole lot of confidence in. I've gone it at probably a 40-60% success rate (when alone). I've dowsed three coins successfully to the year and some several in a row all fairly close in date (within 2 or 3 years). I can tell you it is more then coincidence. But as I've shown before, at least for myself, dowsing can't work under the conditions of a test such as this.

My reasoning for submitting to it is that I don't have to pay for anything, go anyway, or waste very much time.

I do believe I could teach someone dowsing, I have taught several people the basics. Yet some are still to closed minded to conceive such a thing. (Some people within my extended family).

 

[Jean310]

But as I've shown before, at least for myself, dowsing can't work under the conditions of a test such as this.

I detect a note of apprehension and doubt in your statement above. If you are sure your dowsing talent cannot be verified (as you say) through the coin-dating test, I suppose Carl could save the time and energy of setting it up and the cost of postage to mail the coins back and forth.

If the coin-dating test, as discussed here, can't verify your dowsing talent, what kind of test method or setup could be used to validate your dowsing talent? Do you have something else in mind?

Far as teaching someone how to dowse; that is probably something that might not take very long. If done with the manipulation of an L-shaped wire, it is merely a matter of learning to balance the wire so it does not swing wildly back and forth, and then demonstrate to them how the wire should react when over or near a target, and in just a few short minutes they will usually be emulating your responses exactly. Ergo, they are dowsing.

Unfortunately, the rubber meets the road, when those same subjects try looking for completely unknown targets. And, therein lies the problem, and the very reason why we are having this discussion.

Jean