probability theory

[ClonedSIM]

The first post all the guesses are from the Dowsing Doesn't work crowd..

1..So, you have a 98.7% chance of finding between 0 and 3 coins.
2..if you ran this test an infinite number of times it will average out 1 correct guess. That is the expected number of coins on average you'll guess correctly.
3..The odds of him dowsing say 5 or 6 is still so stacked against him that it probably WON'T happen in that instance.
4..I think you'd be lucky to get one in ten.
5..replications will converge asymptotically to the expected average of the binomial distribution, in this case 1.
6..As you can see, roughly 93% of the time you will experience Zero, One or Two Hits
Post #2 is after someone as agreed to a test...from the Dowsing Doesn't work crowd.
1..Great, so if Sandy gets 7 correct, we can both agree it was due to his dowsing ability?
2..confirming his own self-administered test results of 40-60%.
3..Hey Art, what you've obviously failed to notice is that Sandy himself said he expected a 40-60%
4..Actually, true guessing in real-world situations follows mathematical distributions precisely. If it did not, then the whole field of statistics would be bogus.
5..The exercise of putting a human through the process of "guessing" a series of trials in order to obtain GUESSED DATA for comparison, has ALREADY been accomplished. The data has been calculated precisely and has been given here in more than one posting. Further, the data that "might" be obtained from Sandsted guessing could very likely be flawed, when compared to the calculated data. You see, if he guesses and produces data, there is no guarantee he might not skew the guessing unconsciously, and this is a very real possibility.
6.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.
7..That would be 7 or more correct - to show compelling evidence for the dowsing claim.
8..The reason for choosing 7 is because it has a probability for a chance result of just slightly greater than 1 in 1000.
9..6 or 7 would be the result I would like to see, as well.
10..And when xxxx 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.
11..I gave you ONE number, that I thought would be very compelling evidence to support Sandy's dowsing claim. 7
I see holes that you could drive a semi though and not touch either side. I see words like follows mathematical distributions precisely, expected average of the binomial distribution, , if he guesses and produces data, there is no guarantee he might not skew the guessing unconsciously, and this is a very real possibility and in order to pass the Preliminary Test before going for the Randi $1M.

Here's what you are failing to grasp, Art, and I think you're doing it purposely.

What you've done here is compile all the data you could find from the "A Test for Sandsted" post. We won't get into the fact that you've posted it all out of context, and in such a way that it looks as though all of these are answers to only one question.

In fact, if you were to properly attribute all of these quotes, you'll find several of them are answers to different questions, many of which you didn't even ask!

That being said, all of these answers are correct, depending on the question asked. I'll show you how, if you promise to read my response.

When it was said that Sandy has a 98.7 percent chance of getting between 1-3 coin dates right, it means that if Sandy were not to dowse and just guess randomly at dates, almost all the time he will get either 0,1,2,or 3 correct. The greatest number of times he will get one correct, since that is what the statistical odds point to as being the most common possibility.

Please note these calculations have been done using "real math," which you don't understand and can't possibly argue with since you don't even know what they mean.

That being said, let's stop for a second and look at the questions you asked throughout the "Test for Sandsted" post. I know you asked
"How many will Sandy get right?" But you also asked
"How many does Sandy need to get right in order to beat the odds of guessing?"
and you also asked
"How many do you think Sandy will get right?"
These are three different questions, requiring three different answers. Hence, all the above quotes are correct.

The overwhelming majority of the answers you got pertained to the question of how many Sandy would need to get right in order to beat what you could expect by just guessing.

Here's one thing I think I need to point out. The charts you had so many problems with gave the odds of what one could expect to get when simply guessing at the coin dates. When someone is guessing at numbers, the odds of them getting more and more correct go down with the more correct answers are guessed. But what this means to Sandy is, nothing at all. The charts are only there to provide a base to find out how many he would need to prove dowsing is any better than guessing.

When you compile the answers given to this question, you will find that the answers fall between 6 and 8. The reason for this is because this is the range that most, if not all, of the probability of guessing has fallen away from Sandy's test.

Simply put, if Sandy gets between 6 and 8 correct responses, he has soundly beaten the amount of correct answers you could expect to get by guessing.

The reason some people said 6 and some said 7 and some said 8 is that some folks want him to perform only as well as he claims, and some want him to perform to the point that there can be no doubt at all that he used a skill other than guessing in finding these coin dates.

Please read this from top to bottom before responding, as this is the last time I will explain this to you , seeing as how you refuse to even try to grasp this concept.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[ClonedSIM]

So, how well did we guess?

We're waiting to hear from Sandy and Carl, the last I saw. I don't think Carl has gotten the coins back from Sandy yet.

 

[aarthrj3811]

What you've done here is compile all the data you could find from the "A Test for Sandsted"

You forgot about the DATA from How many coins will I find?

When it was said that Sandy has a 98.7 percent chance of getting between 1-3 coin dates right, it means that if Sandy were not to dowse and just guess randomly at dates, almost all the time he will get either 0,1,2,or 3 correct. The greatest number of times he will get one correct, since that is what the statistical odds point to as being the most common possibility.

The key word here is ONE CORRECT

Here's one thing I think I need to point out. The charts you had so many problems with gave the odds of what one could expect to get when simply guessing at the coin dates. The charts are only there to provide a base to find out how many he would need to prove dowsing is any better than guessing.

I agree ..the charts mean nothing.

When you compile the answers given to this question, you will find that the answers fall between 6 and 8. The reason for this is because this is the range that most, if not all, of the probability of guessing has fallen away from Sandy's test.

Now we go from may be one right is called guessing to between 6 and 8 correct to because the probability of guess has been ruled out....Clear as mud.

Please read this from top to bottom before responding, as this is the last time I will explain this to you , seeing as how you refuse to even try to grasp this concept.

Thanks af1733....I understand it now...The use of the word guess is just that "a guess". When using the word guess as it applies to Dowsing means probability of guessing. ..Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

What you've done here is compile all the data you could find from the "A Test for Sandsted"

You forgot about the DATA from How many coins will I find?

When it was said that Sandy has a 98.7 percent chance of getting between 1-3 coin dates right, it means that if Sandy were not to dowse and just guess randomly at dates, almost all the time he will get either 0,1,2,or 3 correct. The greatest number of times he will get one correct, since that is what the statistical odds point to as being the most common possibility.

The key word here is ONE CORRECT

Here's one thing I think I need to point out. The charts you had so many problems with gave the odds of what one could expect to get when simply guessing at the coin dates. The charts are only there to provide a base to find out how many he would need to prove dowsing is any better than guessing.

I agree ..the charts mean nothing.

When you compile the answers given to this question, you will find that the answers fall between 6 and 8. The reason for this is because this is the range that most, if not all, of the probability of guessing has fallen away from Sandy's test.

Now we go from may be one right is called guessing to between 6 and 8 correct to because the probability of guess has been ruled out....Clear as mud.

Please read this from top to bottom before responding, as this is the last time I will explain this to you , seeing as how you refuse to even try to grasp this concept.

Thanks af1733....I understand it now...The use of the word guess is just that "a guess". When using the word guess as it applies to Dowsing means probability of guessing. ..Art

Do you read what you've written before you hit the Post button?

You refuse to understand what everyone else here has no problem grasping. Since it's just you, please continue to be ignorant. The rest of us can carry on without you.

 

[aarthrj3811]

You refuse to understand what everyone else here has no problem grasping. Since it's just you, please continue to be ignorant. The rest of us can carry on without you

Since you seem to believe that all dowsing is plain old "guessing" I should expect to only get 1 out of 10 right...To prove that I am not "guessing" the number is 6 to 8 right...If any treasure hunter can guess right 50% of the time why would they need any kind of equipment to find objects?

Are you telling us that all treasure hunters are dumb for using tools to locate treasure?....Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

You refuse to understand what everyone else here has no problem grasping. Since it's just you, please continue to be ignorant. The rest of us can carry on without you

Since you seem to believe that all dowsing is plain old "guessing" I should expect to only get 1 out of 10 right...To prove that I am not "guessing" the number is 6 to 8 right...If any treasure hunter can guess right 50% of the time why would they need any kind of equipment to find objects?

Are you telling us that all treasure hunters are dumb for using tools to locate treasure?....Art

See, I knew you actually understood, you were just playing dumb...although I don't really know why...

In the way Carl set up the coin test with Sandy, the odds of correctly guessing 0,1,2 or 3 correct dates is about what you might expect if you ran the test several times and only guessed at the dates.

By dowsing 6 to 8 correct dates, Sandy will be accomplishing a number of things. First, he will be meeting the high end of his own self-set goal of 60%. He will also be decisively beating the odds one could expect if they were only guessing. And he will prove that dowsing the dates of coins is a real thing.

The whole correlation you're trying to make between hunting for treasure and guessing is just boorish and juvenile. Sandy should be able to get more than 50% of the dates right because he's dowsing, remember? If he were only guessing I would expect him to get about 1 date correct, because guessing is not treasure hunting.

Treasure hunters use treasure tool to locate treasure. My metal detector beeps everytime something metal passes under it's coil, not 50% of the time. If it only worked half of the time, I would send it back. If you only find treasure 50% of the time with your rods, then you should stick them in your closet and take up golf.

 

[aarthrj3811]

The whole correlation you're trying to make between hunting for treasure and guessing is just boorish and juvenile. Sandy should be able to get more than 50% of the dates right because he's dowsing, remember? If he were only guessing I would expect him to get about 1 date correct, because guessing is not treasure hunting.

Your right ...My math skills are poor. I thought 2 was a higher number than 1 and it would be more than just a guess. I see clearly now that your theory is correct. I am not up on this new math where it takes 8 to beat 1....Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

The whole correlation you're trying to make between hunting for treasure and guessing is just boorish and juvenile. Sandy should be able to get more than 50% of the dates right because he's dowsing, remember? If he were only guessing I would expect him to get about 1 date correct, because guessing is not treasure hunting.

Your right ...My math skills are poor. I thought 2 was a higher number than 1 and it would be more than just a guess. I see clearly now that your theory is correct. I am not up on this new math where it takes 8 to beat 1....Art

Your comment has nothing to do with the my post that you quoted, so I'll just assume that your rods fail you more than 50% of the time and you're simply bitter about that.

As far as the math skills go...well...you're on your own.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Your comment has nothing to do with the my post that you quoted, so I'll just assume that your rods fail you more than 50% of the time and you're simply bitter about that.

Gee af1733...You keeping trying to change the subject...I have shown that your "GUESSING NUMBERS" are just plain "wacky". If we were FLIPPING COINS they would still be wacky. The odds are still wacky when applied to coin flipping which they are based on...Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

Your comment has nothing to do with the my post that you quoted, so I'll just assume that your rods fail you more than 50% of the time and you're simply bitter about that.

Gee af1733...You keeping trying to change the subject...I have shown that your "GUESSING NUMBERS" are just plain "wacky". If we were FLIPPING COINS they would still be wacky. The odds are still wacky when applied to coin flipping which they are based on...Art

Once again, Art, you have no grasp of what the numbers meant in the first place, so I have no doubt you consider them "wacky."

And I haven't changed the subject at all. You brought up the issue of a 50% success rate. Were you aware that 50% can also be expressed as 1/2, or half?

If you consider failing half of the time in your treasure hunting a success, then more power to you. I like to succeed more than 50% of the time, but if being half right is okay to you, then I guess Sandy is just fine getting less than that.

 

[Oroblanco]

Interesting. I still hold that a true "test" for a person who claims to be able to dowse coins under cups, should include a test with THE SAME PERSON guessing which cup held the coin, without any sort of dowsing tool, the exact same number of "runs"; while probability odds can be calculated, a general probability for ALL human beings is not necessarily the same odds for EVERY human being. It would be the same as saying that the average throwing speed of a baseball for ALL human beings is the same as a professional baseball pitcher, which would be ridiculous. Some people are just good guessers. After all, aren't we supposed to be testing the claim that the dowser is able to DOWSE the presence of a coin under a cup, so we should compare that person's dowsing against that same person's GUESS.

The odds of pure chance are easy to calculate, if not well understood by everyone; however when we are supposed to be testing the claim of someone's ability, it makes sense to compare that person's claim while using the tool(s) so included in the claim, versus that person using NO dowsing tool (or other tool) in order to have a meaningful data result to compare. To compare the dowsing result versus the average of ALL human beings is not a realistic comparison. I would even take this one step further, in this example - and have a person who does not believe dowsing can work, run through the exact same tests the exact same number of times, one set of 'run's using the same implements used by the dowser (especially if the person does not believe dowsing works) and a set of runs simply guessing.

I realize that my suggestion is not likely to be accepted, however would it not make more sense, if after the tests were finished, one could then point to the result and say this is how that person did by dowsing, versus how that person did by guessing - if the two results were different, it would then show that either the dowsing truly had a positive or negative influence on finding the coin. Otherwise we will not know if the person got the result by dowsing, or simple guessing, or whether their dowsing was actually any better or worse than their guessing. However have at it, sure wish I could be present to watch the test.

Oroblanco

 

[aarthrj3811]

I realize that my suggestion is not likely to be accepted, however would it not make more sense, if after the tests were finished, one could then point to the result and say this is how that person did by dowsing, versus how that person did by guessing - if the two results were different, it would then show that either the dowsing truly had a positive or negative influence on finding the coin. Otherwise we will not know if the person got the result by dowsing, or simple guessing, or whether their dowsing was actually any better or worse than their guessing. However have at it, sure wish I could be present to watch the test.

Sounds good to me...Art

 

[Carl-NC]

I still hold that a true "test" for a person who claims to be able to dowse coins under cups, should include a test with THE SAME PERSON guessing which cup held the coin, without any sort of dowsing tool, the exact same number of "runs";

This was already explained here and here and here.

while probability odds can be calculated, a general probability for ALL human beings is not necessarily the same odds for EVERY human being.

For guessing, it is.

It would be the same as saying that the average throwing speed of a baseball for ALL human beings is the same as a professional baseball pitcher, which would be ridiculous.

This is a ludicrous analogy... Professional pitching requires strength and skill, it has nothing to do with guessing.

Some people are just good guessers.

No, some people just make good guesses sometimes. That's why there are Powerball winners. It still falls within theoretical distributions.

After all, aren't we supposed to be testing the claim that the dowser is able to DOWSE the presence of a coin under a cup, so we should compare that person's dowsing against that same person's GUESS.

A dowser can certainly perform guessing trials, but it will need to be done a significant number of times in order to produce a viable distribution to compare with dowsing. You can't just do it once or twice. And, in the end, the distribution will be the same as what can be calculated.

To compare the dowsing result versus the average of ALL human beings is not a realistic comparison.

Guessing is the same for everyone. If anyone consistently outperforms theory, then it's no longer guessing.

I would even take this one step further, in this example - and have a person who does not believe dowsing can work, run through the exact same tests the exact same number of times, one set of 'run's using the same implements used by the dowser (especially if the person does not believe dowsing works) and a set of runs simply guessing.

We can do that, right here on this forum. Game?

- Carl

 

[aarthrj3811]

while probability odds can be calculated, a general probability for ALL human beings is not necessarily the same odds for EVERY human being.

For guessing, it is.

You don't see a problem with this statement?

Some people are just good guessers.

No, some people just make good guesses sometimes. That's why there are Powerball winners. It still falls within theoretical distributions

.
So we have another Theory?

A dowser can certainly perform guessing trials, but it will need to be done a significant number of times in order to produce a viable distribution to compare with dowsing

.

You can't just do it once or twice. And, in the end, the distribution will be the same as what can be calculated.

So whats wrong with doing a test a signficant number of times?

Guessing is the same for everyone. If anyone consistently outperforms theory, then it's no longer guessing.

Another theory.
Art

 

[Oroblanco]

Carl wrote:

Quote from: Oroblanco on Mar 11, 2007, 10:44:37 PM
I still hold that a true "test" for a person who claims to be able to dowse coins under cups, should include a test with THE SAME PERSON guessing which cup held the coin, without any sort of dowsing tool, the exact same number of "runs";

This was already explained here and here and here.

Quote
while probability odds can be calculated, a general probability for ALL human beings is not necessarily the same odds for EVERY human being.

For guessing, it is.

Quote
It would be the same as saying that the average throwing speed of a baseball for ALL human beings is the same as a professional baseball pitcher, which would be ridiculous.

This is a ludicrous analogy... Professional pitching requires strength and skill, it has nothing to do with guessing.

No, it has not been "explained" here and here and here. Dowsing is NOT guessing, it is either some kind of skill or ability, which is apparently beyond your grasp, and explains a lot. So in your view, if a person makes a claim that he/she is able to do something, using some sort of tool, you hold that in every case, the ability(ies) of the person have nothing to do with the result as compared to pure mathematical chance? Let me give you another example, since you see a professional baseball pitcher as having some kind of "skill" while you will not grant that any dowser is exhibiting any kind of skill:

(For the sake of example) I say that I can hit a two inch diameter target with my rifle, using the variable powered scope 99 out of 100 shots at a range of 300 yards. My claim is that the scope I use is making my scoring average so high. You think it is then significant to compare this score (99%) with some mathematical average, which is averaged purely from mathematical theory, NOT using any kind of comparable scope? Would it not make more sense to have the shooter then try to match the result, WITHOUT using the scope, in order to see if that claim that the scope is actually affecting the shooting result? So if some one claims that he/she is DOWSING to find coins under cups, would it not make more sense to then compare how that person does, WITHOUT dowsing, in order to ascertain whether the claim that dowsing is actually causing some effect? Your insistance on making all comparisons to pure mathematical chance are not a good comparison, if you cannot see that, I can then understand more about you than previously Carl, as well as your challenge(s) and statistics.

Oroblanco

 

[ClonedSIM]

No, it has not been "explained" here and here and here. Dowsing is NOT guessing, it is either some kind of skill or ability, which is apparently beyond your grasp, and explains a lot. Oroblanco

What you're missing here, Oro, is that skeptics have long claimed that dowsing is tantamount to guessing. Guessing using observation and common sense.

This is why Carl has set up his tests,and given us all the handy charts, to compare guessing to dowsing. If a dowser consistently beats the results that can be obtained by guessing, then there is obviously something more to dowsing that just guessing.

The tough part is getting dowsers to comprehend that the odds of guessing can be calculated, even if they don't understand how.

 

[aarthrj3811]

This is why Carl has set up his tests,and given us all the handy charts, to compare guessing to dowsing. If a dowser consistently beats the results that can be obtained by guessing, then there is obviously something more to dowsing that just guessing.

Hey af...That's what you don't understand...You handy charts are clearly wrong....Art

 

[Oroblanco]

af1733 wrote:

The tough part is getting dowsers to comprehend that the odds of guessing can be calculated, even if they don't understand how

Getting dowsers to comprehend that the odds of guessing can be calculated is "the tough part"? Well that about tears it, and confirms it. What is it that you skeptics desire, that you are here baiting, waiting in an attempt to get some dowser to make some claim that you can then test and prove false? Did it occur to any of our genius Skeptics that someone might make a claim on an internet forum, that he is simply stretching or embellishing things just a bit? Ever been to a bar on a Friday night, that you would want to test the claims of anyone who made some kind of statement that is not within the odds of pure statistical chance? Why is it that we can easily look up the genuine ID and contact info for just about every dowser, and NOT for our "skeptics"? Fear perhaps? Of what?

This attitude of pretended intellectual superiority on the part of our "friendly" skeptics is highly offensive and could not be further from the truth. If you Mr Skeptic are SO far in advance of dowsers in sheer brain power, has it NOT YET OCCURRED to you that they very well might comprehend that the odds of guessing can be calculated, but that they DON'T AGREE WITH (or accept) YOUR CONCLUSIONS? Obviously, this simple deduction has escaped the super-brains of the Skeptic World, it is more comforting to assume some kind of mental superiority! Ah yes, the world of delusions! Keep those mirrors shiny...

I will trouble you with one last question. Do you, Mr Skeptic (all) believe that mathematical, theoretical statistics and probabilities match with real world statistics perfectly? If you believe this, you are more deluded than any dowser - for theoretical statistics just don't match with real world statistics. If you doubt this, contact any stock broker on Wall Street, where numerous mathematical statistical theories have been tried in attempts to "predict" and "beat the market" with astoundingly poor results.

Even the attitude of being able to predict with 98% accuracy is a delusion, for in that tiny margin of error, exists a tremendous and significant set of facts. For it is in the tiny margins of the real world that many things work, like being able to grow a crop of barley in Alaska one year, and not being able to get a successful crop the very next year because of the difference of a single degree of temperature on a single day. Those tiny margins that will not fit in the theoretical model may well even be more important than the 98% which was successfully predictable. Ever heard of a rather 'wild' idea, they commonly refer to as "Chaos theory"? (Sometimes called the "butterfly effect")

Also, if you really think that there are no "good guessers" out there, why not run a simple test like that I ran here recently? I was shocked at how quickly our T-net members were able to guess correctly, but if you don't believe that some people are good guessers why not go ahead and run a simple test?

Do, yes, proceed with the "test" of Sandsted's claim, which will be proving, what again? That he either beat the theoretical odds of chance, or he failed to beat the theoretical odds of chance? That is ALL that can be deduced from ANY result of your described test. If he is successful (and this definition of SUCCESS is highly arbitrary, and no I won't accept on anyone's word HERE that they are an acknowledged expert in statistical probabilities which would give them the authority to pronounce exactly what is a significant "success") will that PROVE that his dowsing was the result of his success, or did he simply get lucky guessing it? You will NEVER know because you apparently cannot grasp the concept of testing an actual claim, which is what you CLAIM that you are doing, but in reality all you are doing is comparing someone's statement to theoretical probabilities. So good luck with your "tests" of course you will have fun with it, at the dowser's expense (naturally) and you can continue to pretend some kind of intellectual superiority. Fortunately for you, most dowsers are pretty nice folks and usually extend the hand of friendship, so you have a wide open field of friendly people that you can try to make fools of. Oh, anyone want to put up $25000 (cash of course) to "test" my claims of shooting ability? You can sure compare my results with theoretical probabilities, and conclude that I either beat the odds of chance or did not beat the odds of chance. Good luck and good hunting to you, hope you find the "treasures" that you seek.

Oroblanco

 

[ClonedSIM]

This is why Carl has set up his tests,and given us all the handy charts, to compare guessing to dowsing. If a dowser consistently beats the results that can be obtained by guessing, then there is obviously something more to dowsing that just guessing.

Hey af...That's what you don't understand...You handy charts are clearly wrong....Art

Hence the remainder of my post: The tough part is getting dowsers to comprehend that the odds of guessing can be calculated, even if they don't understand how.

In case you missed it, this was directed at you, Art.

 

[ClonedSIM]

af1733 wrote:

The tough part is getting dowsers to comprehend that the odds of guessing can be calculated, even if they don't understand how

Getting dowsers to comprehend that the odds of guessing can be calculated is "the tough part"? Well that about tears it, and confirms it. What is it that you skeptics desire, that you are here baiting, waiting in an attempt to get some dowser to make some claim that you can then test and prove false? Did it occur to any of our genius Skeptics that someone might make a claim on an internet forum, that he is simply stretching or embellishing things just a bit? Ever been to a bar on a Friday night, that you would want to test the claims of anyone who made some kind of statement that is not within the odds of pure statistical chance? Why is it that we can easily look up the genuine ID and contact info for just about every dowser, and NOT for our "skeptics"? Fear perhaps? Of what?

This attitude of pretended intellectual superiority on the part of our "friendly" skeptics is highly offensive and could not be further from the truth. If you Mr Skeptic are SO far in advance of dowsers in sheer brain power, has it NOT YET OCCURRED to you that they very well might comprehend that the odds of guessing can be calculated, but that they DON'T AGREE WITH (or accept) YOUR CONCLUSIONS? Obviously, this simple deduction has escaped the super-brains of the Skeptic World, it is more comforting to assume some kind of mental superiority! Ah yes, the world of delusions! Keep those mirrors shiny...

I will trouble you with one last question. Do you, Mr Skeptic (all) believe that mathematical, theoretical statistics and probabilities match with real world statistics perfectly? If you believe this, you are more deluded than any dowser - for theoretical statistics just don't match with real world statistics. If you doubt this, contact any stock broker on Wall Street, where numerous mathematical statistical theories have been tried in attempts to "predict" and "beat the market" with astoundingly poor results.

Even the attitude of being able to predict with 98% accuracy is a delusion, for in that tiny margin of error, exists a tremendous and significant set of facts. For it is in the tiny margins of the real world that many things work, like being able to grow a crop of barley in Alaska one year, and not being able to get a successful crop the very next year because of the difference of a single degree of temperature on a single day. Those tiny margins that will not fit in the theoretical model may well even be more important than the 98% which was successfully predictable. Ever heard of a rather 'wild' idea, they commonly refer to as "Chaos theory"? (Sometimes called the "butterfly effect")

Also, if you really think that there are no "good guessers" out there, why not run a simple test like that I ran here recently? I was shocked at how quickly our T-net members were able to guess correctly, but if you don't believe that some people are good guessers why not go ahead and run a simple test?

Do, yes, proceed with the "test" of Sandsted's claim, which will be proving, what again? That he either beat the theoretical odds of chance, or he failed to beat the theoretical odds of chance? That is ALL that can be deduced from ANY result of your described test. If he is successful (and this definition of SUCCESS is highly arbitrary, and no I won't accept on anyone's word HERE that they are an acknowledged expert in statistical probabilities which would give them the authority to pronounce exactly what is a significant "success") will that PROVE that his dowsing was the result of his success, or did he simply get lucky guessing it? You will NEVER know because you apparently cannot grasp the concept of testing an actual claim, which is what you CLAIM that you are doing, but in reality all you are doing is comparing someone's statement to theoretical probabilities. So good luck with your "tests" of course you will have fun with it, at the dowser's expense (naturally) and you can continue to pretend some kind of intellectual superiority. Fortunately for you, most dowsers are pretty nice folks and usually extend the hand of friendship, so you have a wide open field of friendly people that you can try to make fools of. Oh, anyone want to put up $25000 (cash of course) to "test" my claims of shooting ability? You can sure compare my results with theoretical probabilities, and conclude that I either beat the odds of chance or did not beat the odds of chance. Good luck and good hunting to you, hope you find the "treasures" that you seek.

Oroblanco

Whew, that's some kind of rant there, Oro! It's meaningless, of course, but impressive nonetheless.