A Test for Sandsted

[ClonedSIM]

Wow, Judy. When you showed up in this forum, I thought we finally had a dowsing proponent that could grasp simple concepts, but apparently not. I had you pegged totally wrong. Not only do you seem to toss off mathematics like they're meaningless and "out to get you", but you've also resorted to asking the same questions over and over after being given a totally correct and reasonable answer.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Carl-NC]

The problem is that you are testing a human being using "guessing" as a measurable quantity....yet you do not have a "measure" of "human guessing" (a human sample group) on which to base your statistics. Therefore, your statistics are skewed and unreliable for determining a proper level of "confidence" on any results obtained from this "test".

Well, let's explore this a little, assuming you are now willing to actually engage in a conversation about this. Please explain how a fully randomized selection process differs from humans guessing. Also offer suggestions on how to address this issue properly.

I am also aware of WHY the "testor" insists on eliminating the human element in the measuring of "random guessing"....they are trying to eliminate the human variables that would require adjusting the test and any statistical analysis made upon it.

Can you detail what "human variables" you are talking about? Would you expect true human guessing (including "human variables") to end up better, or worse, than a fully randomized selection process?

Why do you think Science has not been able to Dis-Prove dowsing?

This question has been answered many times already...

For those those who weren't paying attention before...

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISPROVE DOWSING.

Just as it is impossible to disprove IPUs.

- Carl

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

[=JudyH The problem is that you are testing a human being using "guessing" as a measurable quantity....yet you do not have a "measure" of "human guessing" (a human sample group) on which to base your statistics. Therefore, your statistics are skewed and unreliable for determining a proper level of "confidence" on any results obtained from this "test".
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Apparently I've given you too much credit....I assumed you could read AND comprehend. Carl knows exactly what I'm talking about.....judging from his answer above. Apparently he does not have the same problem with comprehension.....only a misguided reliance on a flawed statistical conclusion.

You can suggest to your hearts content.....I would rather be grouped with the dowsers than with the statisticians...any day.
At least they have demonstrated they can think outside of the box.
***************

Right on Judy. A shibboleth is a Shibboleth by Any name, an inalterable, a religion, not discussable. Inferiors are not intelligent enough to discuss it. So avoid any questions pertainig to it.

Resurrected Tropical Tramp

 

[COUNTRY GIRL]

Right on Judy. A shibboleth is a Shibboleth by Any name, an inalterable, a religion, not discussable. Inferiors are not intelligent enough to discuss it. So avoid any questions pertainig to it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am really sorry about this and mean no disrespect but............Just like the dowsing interpretations, here's an interpretation

A circumcised uuhhh person, who specializes in shared experiences of specialized jargon?
So some talk the talk and some walk the walk? I think I got that.

 

[Oroblanco]

When you showed up in this forum, I thought we finally had a dowsing proponent that could grasp simple concepts, but apparently not. I

Well I can see this has been a waste of time. Just go on thinking that science has the complete answer for everything, as it is the "new religion". Bye.

 

[Carl-NC]

Well I can see this has been a waste of time. Just go on thinking that science has the complete answer for everything, as it is the "new religion". Bye.

I couldn't agree more... we should toss the last 300 years of the most amazing intellectual progress the human race has ever seen, and seek our answers in some sort of mystic dreamworld.

Sigh...

Moving right along, I found the web site for a Very Useful Statistical Calculator. Click Here.

For this particular test, enter [1] set of numbers, [10] numbers per set, and a range From [1960] To [1999]. Everything else defaults. You should get 10 randomly generated dates. Repeat, and you will get 10 more random dates.

Experiment #1...

Guess 10 dates in the proper range, and write them down on paper. Now use the RNG to generate 10 dates. Compare to your guesses (order matters!). Are you psychic? Did you get 5 right? No? How 'bout 4? 3? No? Most likely 0 or 1.

OK, give yourself some slack... were you within +/- 1 year 5 times? OK, how about +/- 2 years? +/- 3 years?

Experiment #2...

What happens if I hand you 10 sealed coins, and I ask you to guess the dates of those coins? Furthermore, let's say I will give you 100 tries to guess the dates. How many of those attempts will have 5 correct answers? How many attempts will have 5 answers correct to +/- 3 years?

The RNG makes this an easy experiment. Simply generate 101 data sets (put [101] in the first box), and use the first data set as the target dates, and the remaining sets as the "guesses". Compare the 100 "guess" sets to the "target" set, and see how often the dates match.

Fun fer the whole family.

- Carl

 

[Oroblanco]

I couldn't agree more... we should toss the last 300 years of the most amazing intellectual progress the human race has ever seen, and seek our answers in some sort of mystic dreamworld.

Is that what I said? Can you read correctly, Carl? (Sigh)

 

[ClonedSIM]

When you showed up in this forum, I thought we finally had a dowsing proponent that could grasp simple concepts, but apparently not. I

Well I can see this has been a waste of time. Just go on thinking that science has the complete answer for everything, as it is the "new religion". Bye.

Well, I was directing this at Judy, but okay....

According to the folks here, dowsing is actually the new religion. You have to have faith in dowsing, to believe in it, for it to work. Does this hold true for science? Do you have to believe in it for it to exist?

Nope, it's there whether you want it or not. And you can't escape it, even if you wish to deny it. Ever been to the hospital? Ever turned on a light or watched a television or listened to a radio? Then you are a member of this "scientific religion" if you prefer to refer to it in this manner.

Science has answers, it's true, but dowsers have answers as well. It's just too bad the answers they give are to questions no one has asked. For instance, no matter how long this board has been running, not a single dowser has answered the question,
"How does dowsing work?"

Oh, we've had all sorts of folks give their theories, but they've all been different and not a single one of them contained a single verifiable fact. Would you believe a person who hasn't the slightest clue what they are actually doing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

"How does dowsing work?"

Hey af1733...We have answered that question over and over. The studies have been posted. Where are your studies and any real facts that prove we are wrong...Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

"How does dowsing work?"

Hey af1733...We have answered that question over and over. The studies have been posted. Where are your studies and any real facts that prove we are wrong...Art

All the studies that have been posted show dowsing to be no better than guessing, and none of them address how dowsing works, which was my question.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Gee af1733...If you expect any one to tell you how Dowsing works you may have a long wait. I have told you many times that I don't know. The only thing I can tell you is that it does. Why not ask the Scientist how it works. Instead of tring to prove it doesn't work why not put some effort into finding out why it works. You can make up all the excuses that you want to but the fact will remain...It works as is proved every day....Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

Gee af1733...If you expect any one to tell you how Dowsing works you may have a long wait. I have told you many times that I don't know. The only thing I can tell you is that it does. Why not ask the Scientist how it works. Instead of tring to prove it doesn't work why not put some effort into finding out why it works. You can make up all the excuses that you want to but the fact will remain...It works as is proved every day....Art

Wow. That's all I can say.
You don't know how dowsing works? I'll file that under the growing file of things you aren't aware of.

Why not ask a scientist? About dowsing? And how it works? Are you serious?

I should try to prove how it works? Me? A non-dowser? Okay, fine, I tried it once and it didn't work, so you aren't really dowsing because I say you're not. Why don't you try to put some effort into providing proof, since you're the one who says he is dowsing....

And it's proved to work every day? By whom?

 

[Oroblanco]

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/betz/betz_toc.html

Read.

I should try to prove how it works? Me? A non-dowser? Okay, fine, I tried it once and it didn't work, so you aren't really dowsing because I say you're not.

Ah, yes, the "scientific" approach.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

[=af1733 , []"How does dowsing work?"
***********
What natural law is involved in Gravity? Explain it please. One is accepted even though we cannot yet define it, why is the other, dowsing, different?

Tropical 'Tramp

 

[Carl-NC]

Moving right along...

Using the approximated statistics shown in Post 143, we can now calculate the odds of guessing coin dates exactly, or to within some error band. Let's start with exact. With 10 coins from a pool of 40 dates, the odds of guessing M correctly are:

M=0: (39/40)^10 = 77.63%
M=1: (1/40) * (38/39)^9 * 10 = 19.79%
M=2: (1/40) * (1/39) * (37/38)^8 * 45 = 2.33%

We'll stop here, as this covers 99.75% of the outcomes. That is, the odds of guessing 3 or more exactly right is 0.25%.

Notice that for M=1 and M=2 there are multipliers of 10 and 45. These cover the number of ways to achieve those results. I.e., there are 10 ways to guess 1 correct date, and 45 ways to guess 2 correct dates. There is only 1 way to guess 0 correct dates. These multipliers can be found by writing out Pascal's Triangle.

Next, what are the odds that guesses will fall within +/- 1 year of the actual dates?

M=0: (37/40)^10 = 45.86%
M=1: (3/40) * (36/39)^9 * 10 = 36.49%
M=2: (3/40) * (3/39) * (35/38)^8 * 45 = 13.45%
M=3: (3/40) * (3/39) * (3/38) * (34/37)^7 * 120 = 3.02%

With exact guessing, the majority of outcomes are zero correct (M=0). When we allow for +/- 1 year of error, the odds start to spread out more, and the chance of guessing 1 or more correctly almost doubles.

What are the odds that guesses will fall within +/- 2 years of the actual dates?

M=0: (35/40)^10 = 26.31%
M=1: (5/40) * (34/39)^9 * 10 = 36.36%
M=2: (5/40) * (5/39) * (33/38)^8 * 45 = 23.33%
M=3: (5/40) * (5/39) * (5/38) * (32/37)^7 * 120 = 9.16%
M=4: (5/40) * (5/39) * (5/38) * (5/37) * (31/36)^6 * 210 = 2.44%

What are the odds that guesses will fall within +/- 3 years of the actual dates?

M=0: (33/40)^10 = 14.61%
M=1: (7/40) * (32/39)^9 * 10 = 29.50%
M=2: (7/40) * (7/39) * (31/38)^8 * 45 = 27.73%
M=3: (7/40) * (7/39) * (7/38) * (30/37)^7 * 120 = 16.00%
M=4: (7/40) * (7/39) * (7/38) * (7/37) * (29/36)^6 * 210 = 6.28%
M=5: (7/40) * (7/39) * (7/38) * (7/37) * (7/36) * (28/35)^5 * 252 = 1.76%
M=6: (7/40) * (7/39) * (7/38) * (7/37) * (7/36) * (7/35) * (27/34)^4 * 210 = 0.36%

The last number is, of course, what we are most interested in, as it is the lower bounds for what Sandsted claimed he could do. It suggests that someone can achieve 6 correct dates (to within +/- 3 years) about once every 282 attempts.

Again, these calculations are "approximations" for this particular test. However, thanks to the Very Useful Statistics Calculator I mentioned before, I can actually check my work, and see if these approximations are reasonable.

More later....

- Carl

 

[Oroblanco]

Interesting statistical odds - yet how would a successful result PROVE that the person dowsing did NOT simply 'get lucky' and guess correctly? Wouldn't it be useful to also have the same test subject, try to guess the dates of ten randomly selected coins, to use as a sort of baseline? That way, you should be able to tell by the results if the dowsing of dates was different from that person's simple guessing at the dates.

Some people are naturally intuitive. ESP has been tested and shown to be a real ability (even some police departments make use of "psychics" to search for missing persons and criminals) - so if the person taking the test is actually using ESP instead of dowsing, then any dowsing tool(s) or practice might have no effect beyond that person's natural ESP ability. Ever see the tests done with playing cards? So I would suggest adding a step to this test, that of having the subject literally "guess" at the dates of ten random coins, then do ten other coins using dowsing.

Oroblanco

 

[Carl-NC]

Interesting statistical odds - yet how would a successful result PROVE that the person dowsing did NOT simply 'get lucky' and guess correctly?

Generally, in science, a single success is not "proof" of a claim. Someone, somewhere, always wins the Powerball, but until the same person wins it more than once I wouldn't accept a winner's delusion that they were somehow psychic.

Wouldn't it be useful to also have the same test subject, try to guess the dates of ten randomly selected coins, to use as a sort of baseline? That way, you should be able to tell by the results if the dowsing of dates was different from that person's simple guessing at the dates.

That depends. Do you believe that true guessing will result in a distribution that is accurately predicted by probability theory?

Lemme offer an example... I watched them flip the coin in the Colts/Pats game the other night... everyone seemed to assume that the team guessing the outcome of the flip had a 50-50 chance of being right. Do you believe the coin flip produces results other than what they assumed?

In my experience, true guessing follows probability theory so, no, I would not consider guessing to be especially useful, as far as establishing a baseline. After all, their "guess" could be lucky, which would establish an unrealistically high baseline. Or they might guess zero, and then try to claim that any success is proof of dowsing, when it would be a perfectly normal outcome.

That's why it's important to understand statistics and, for any given test protocol, what the expected results from guessing would be. I've seen a whole lotta folks, many right here on this forum, who simply don't understand statistics, and why their dowsing results are simply unimpressive.

However, the addition of a guessing exercise can add a very insightful twist. While the dowser is dowsing the dates, have a whole bunch of people merely guess the dates. Compare the dowsing to all the guessing, and see if someone can out-guess the dowser. Usually they can, if you have a fair number of guessers.

Some people are naturally intuitive. ESP has been tested and shown to be a real ability (even some police departments make use of "psychics" to search for missing persons and criminals)

Might want to check up on those police psychics... their claims are usually way overblown. I don't recall having ever heard of a single verified case of a psychic being any use to police investigations, outside of the claims made by the psychics themselves. Police tend to call them "useless."

- so if the person taking the test is actually using ESP instead of dowsing, then any dowsing tool(s) or practice might have no effect beyond that person's natural ESP ability.

Then that's not guessing, and they win by ESP. No big deal.

Ever see the tests done with playing cards?

Yup... magicians are pretty good at it. Psychics tend to score right around the level of guessing, unless they know the tricks magicians know.

- Carl

 

[ClonedSIM]

[=af1733 , []"How does dowsing work?"
***********
What natural law is involved in Gravity? Explain it please. One is accepted even though we cannot yet define it, why is the other, dowsing, different?

Tropical 'Tramp

Comparing dowsing to gravity? For shame, Realde....

 

[David Ritchie]

I would like to know where this lrl meeting is going to be held because I sure want to be there
Carl David Ritchie
cdrringo@sbcglobal.net

 

[ClonedSIM]

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/betz/betz_toc.html

Read.

I should try to prove how it works? Me? A non-dowser? Okay, fine, I tried it once and it didn't work, so you aren't really dowsing because I say you're not.

Ah, yes, the "scientific" approach.

Hey, what can I say? I actually did go out to a site that has produced coins and artifacts, and walked around with the rods for a good hour trying to get some reaction out of them, with no success. Since Art and Dell kept trying to tell me to get my own proof, so I went out and did and I can now say with certainty that dowsing does not work to locate treasure.

Of course, I told them that the other dowsers here would argue with my findings, and I was right.