CONNIE SONNE, Dowser

[BillyJoe]

Sorry, but this is just silly. All prior evidence says that no-one has ever had any paranormal ability, and that nothing paranormal has ever been shown to exist. Sure, in theory we can't be 100% sure that the paranormal does not exist, but in practice you would be a fool not to act as if it were certain.

Yes, a sceptic believes in something in proportion to the evidence. There is no evidence of paranormal abilities so, as sceptics, we do not believe in them and live our lives as if they do not exist (same with god). But to say "there is no paranormal ability" requires evidence that there is no paranormal ability.

The burden of proof lies squarely on the claimant.

Yes, as I said, the null hypothesis for this test was that "Connie does not have the ability (for which she was being tested)".

Until Connie can prove that without doubt she does have paranormal abilities, she does not have those abilities.

That statement is obviously incorrect.
(If Connie does, in fact, have that ability she had it before she ever proves she has it)
(There were molecules before there was evidence of molecules.)

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

No.

Certainly not absolute proof of absence, but with the only evidence saying that there is nothing there it is just silly to keep assuming that there might be.

No, it's the second part of what good scepticism is.
First part: Believe in something in proportion to the evidence.
Second part: For those things for which there is no evidence, keep an open mind for evidence becoming available and for those things for which there is evidence keep and open mind about contrary evidence becoming available.

Pointless semantics about absolute certainty are, in fact, pointless. Given probabilities that would run out of electrons before you run out of zeros, there's really no point in worrying about the fact that there's a "1" at the end somewhere.

Sceptics live with uncertainty, that comes with the territory.
Maybe you think scepticism is a religion.

Connie Sonne does not have paranormal abilities. End of story. Until she demonstrates otherwise, there's absolutely no point in saying anything else.

How about: There is no evidence at this time that Connie has paranormal abilities.

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[BillyJoe]

You should have seen it before I edited it!

It was demonstrated that it was wrong for Connie to think that she was receiving paranormal information through her use of the pendulum on this occasion. And we can tell that this situation was similar to those situations which led her to think she could receive information this way, because she accused Banachek of cheating rather than stating that the paranormal information was absent. If her reason for thinking that she has paranormal abilities has been shown to be false, then it may be true that we haven't proven that she doesn't have paranormal abilities, but we have proven that she has no more reason to think that she does than you or me.

I think you might be stretching a little.

This is probably the first time she has had to do this in front of a large audience, so the situation is not quite the same as on previous occasions when she has been apparently successful. In any case, being unsuccessful on one occasion, doesn't mean she has been unsuccessfull on all previous occasions where she has been apparently successful. Also, she didn't immediately accuse Banachek for cheating but initially said that her medium has deserted her. And this was not a test of her mechanism but of her ability - can she do what she says she can do. The nulll hypothesis is that she cannot and she failed to disprove the null hypothesis on this occasion.

regards,
Billyjoe

 

[BillyJoe]

Fair point I suppose, especially as she claims her success or lack thereof is dependent on whether the 'entity' that is working 'through her' decides to enable her to do it.

Which would sort of negate Linda's point.

Having said that, she may forever be able to convince herself that whatever this 'entity' is would always refuse to empower her under test conditions!

Ditto.

However, before the test she was insistent she could and would do it (other than that time when she threw in the caveat I just mentioned) and did not feel a need to experiment herself under guidance (to ensure no opportunity for the ideomotor effect). Now she's failed the test she has good reason, should she choose to see it that way, to wonder if she really does have the powers she seems to believe she has and take some tests herself in private to learn.

I still think you're being a little unfair. If I had a long held belief in something (however erroneously as it might later turn out), I would be a little loathe to dispense with it at the first hint of failure, especially as it had stood me in good stead for so long.
Scientists don't yield as easily as that at the first sign of trouble. There has to be repeated contrary evidence before they will abandon their beliefs. And rightly so.

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[BillyJoe]

I might expect her to reconsider her supposed abilities, based on an objective test.

I think she was inclined to do that initially.

At the very least I'd expect her to admit that the test was objective and fair, and the failure was hers.

Well, there were a couple of wobbles in the carrying out of the protocol.

If she had passed, would you have taken it as proof positive that she has paranormal powers?

Of course not. There was a 1 in 1000 chance of her succeeding. In any case, it would take more than a (apparent) success in one test to convince me that Connie has a paranormal ability.

Do you think she would have, even if she couldn't repeat the demonstration?

Are you really asking me to read the state of mind of some stranger in some hypothetical future.

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[fls]

I think you might be stretching a little.

This is probably the first time she has had to do this in front of a large audience, so the situation is not quite the same as on previous occasions when she has been apparently successful. In any case, being unsuccessful on one occasion, doesn't mean she has been unsuccessfull on all previous occasions where she has been apparently successful. Also, she didn't immediately accuse Banachek for cheating but initially said that her medium has deserted her. And this was not a test of her mechanism but of her ability - can she do what she says she can do. The nulll hypothesis is that she cannot and she failed to disprove the null hypothesis on this occasion.

regards,
Billyjoe

I think that the claim of cheating came later actually strengthens the idea that she felt as though this test was typical for her - the excuse that she gives when she has time to reflect, rather than that given on the spur of the moment would seem to be more reliable. But I also don't think that it matters that much. What matters is what she would have said if she passed the test. If she had passed the test, she would have said that her abilities were present. The measure of whether or not she has an ability depends upon the results - that is, it's a post hoc exercise and so any statements by her as to whether or not the entity is present are entirely irrelevant. She is not telling us anything different from merely looking at the results. Which tells us that she actually has no independent knowledge about this entity to impart to us, so her statements as to its former presence are meaningless. All she is really saying is that sometimes she guesses correctly and sometimes she doesn't.

So the question becomes, is she able to guess correctly under circumstances where she shouldn't be able to guess correctly? Or does she only guess correctly under circumstances where she should be able to guess correctly? We already know that she guesses correctly under circumstances where she should be able to guess correctly - uncontrolled, unrecorded, unanalyzed. Now we have shown that on at least one occasion, she is unable to guess correctly under circumstances where she shouldn't be able to guess correctly. And the thing is, she has already told us that it is those uncontrolled circumstances from which she has drawn her conclusion. She doesn't have any previous examples of guessing correctly under circumstances where she shouldn't be able to guess correctly on which to base her conclusions. Now she does, but it shows that she guesses correctly in the same way that you or I would be able to guess correctly. No additional entity is required.

So why would we say anything about her abilities being disproven to begin with? I can come up with a million ideas that haven't been disproven - that rubbing **** on my face will clear up acne, that doing handstands for 30 minutes a day will improve the economy, that looking cross-eyed at my oldest son will remove the dirt from his clothes, etc. The point isn't that we aren't allowed to say anything about any random idea until we have proof otherwise. The point is that we use information and evidence to come up with these ideas in the first place. And if we evaluate the information and evidence that went into forming these ideas and discover that the idea changes when more complete information is available, we get to change the original idea to reflect the more complete information. Information that says she was successful on prior uncontrolled, informal tests does not count as evidence - that sort of information, as we well know, is present regardless of whether or not the ability is present. If the presence of an entity makes no difference as to what we observe, why bother with the entity in the first place?

There is no more reason to say that she has paranormal abilities than there is to say that you have paranormal abilities.

Linda

 

[JoMadge]

"The cd-rom is the most straight and fair way to show, that I have the connection and that I`m right what I`m talking about."

She accuses the person who performed her test right in front of her of cheating, but we're supposed to accept something she previously recorded as proof? And she calls that "straight and fair"?

Wow.

~JoMadge

 

[Geek Goddess]

Why should the JREF be overly concerned about proving that they did not cheat? After all, they negotiated a protocol extremely weighted in their favor. She had a 1/1000 chance at the start because the protocol effectively disallows all known methods of passing the test.

By chance perhaps, but not if she had the ability she claims to have.

 

[Uncayimmy]

By chance perhaps, but not if she had the ability she claims to have.

Not "perhaps" - it was definitely 1/1000 by chance alone. And this is all the JREF believes she has going for her. Thus my point was that there's no incentive for them to cheat.

 

[Monza]

Sorry, but this is just silly. All prior evidence says that no-one has ever had any paranormal ability, and that nothing paranormal has ever been shown to exist. Sure, in theory we can't be 100% sure that the paranormal does not exist, but in practice you would be a fool not to act as if it were certain. The burden of proof lies squarely on the claimant. Until Connie can prove that without doubt she does have paranormal abilities, she does not have those abilities. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Certainly not absolute proof of absence, but with the only evidence saying that there is nothing there it is just silly to keep assuming that there might be.

The evidence that Connie has magic powers is exactly as strong as the evidence that I have a pet Tyrannosaurus Rex in my flat. It's not just that there's evidence to suggest it's the case, it's also that it's not physically possibly to fit one in there. Pointless semantics about absolute certainty are, in fact, pointless. Given probabilities that would run out of electrons before you run out of zeros, there's really no point in worrying about the fact that there's a "1" at the end somewhere.

Connie Sonne does not have paranormal abilities. End of story. Until she demonstrates otherwise, there's absolutely no point in saying anything else.

Yes. Another way to look at this is to assume Connie does indeed have paranormal powers, but in practice she cannot be distinguished from someone who does not. Ergo, if powers cannot be distinguished from mere chance, are they really powers to begin with?

 

[BillyJoe]

What matters is what she would have said if she passed the test. If she had passed the test, she would have said that her abilities were present. The measure of whether or not she has an ability depends upon the results

No, I don't think it does. She will continue to think she has the ability whether or not she passes the test. For example, when she failed the test, she at first reasoned that her spirit guide must have deserted her. She might later reason that she should not put her powers to the test because her spirit guide will not help her in these circumstances. Later, after looking at the video and noticing that the protocol was not strictly adhered to, she decided that she was cheated out of her win. Whatever excuse she uses, she maintains her certainty about her powers.

- that is, it's a post hoc exercise and so any statements by her as to whether or not the entity is present are entirely irrelevant. She is not telling us anything different from merely looking at the results. Which tells us that she actually has no independent knowledge about this entity to impart to us, so her statements as to its former presence are meaningless.

I think the mechanism is irrelevant anyway. So does Randi. He's not interested in how people think they do what they say they can do. He just wants them to telll him exactly what it is that they think they can actually do. He then devises a test of what they say they can do.

All she is really saying is that sometimes she guesses correctly and sometimes she doesn't.

Is she? I thought she was saying that she can dowse for the correct letters. I don't know with what accuracy she feels she can do this, but surely she is saying that it is significantly better than chance. She may have a theory about how she does this, but, when it comes to the test, we're not really interested, are we? She may have the ability but be wrong about how that ability works. We really just want to know whether she can actually do it better than chance.

So the question becomes, is she able to guess correctly under circumstances where she shouldn't be able to guess correctly? Or does she only guess correctly under circumstances where she should be able to guess correctly? We already know that she guesses correctly under circumstances where she should be able to guess correctly - uncontrolled, unrecorded, unanalyzed. Now we have shown that on at least one occasion, she is unable to guess correctly under circumstances where she shouldn't be able to guess correctly.

I still haven't seen the video, but, as I understand it, the protocol was not strictly adhered to. Also, there was a professional magician on stage handling the cards. Under these circumstances, the result perhaps is not as reliable as it could have been. And it doesn't matter that Connie agreed to professioal magician being there and handling the cards.
So, I agree: on at least one occasion Connie did not guess correctly. In other words that the null hypothesis that she cannot do this has not been disproven.

So why would we say anything about her abilities being disproven to begin with?

We are not saying anything about her abilities being disproven. That is my point. We are saying that the null hypothesis - that she does not have this ability - has not been disproven.

I can come up with a million ideas that haven't been disproven - that rubbing **** on my face will clear up acne, that doing handstands for 30 minutes a day will improve the economy, that looking cross-eyed at my oldest son will remove the dirt from his clothes, etc. The point isn't that we aren't allowed to say anything about any random idea until we have proof otherwise.

Don't you mean "rubbing ***** on your face".
(At least that's how I remember it )

I think perhaps it's not a random idea as far as Connie is concerned. I assume she didn't just pluck the idea out of thin air. Presumably she has noticed that she can identify a card hidden from her view much better than by chance alone. We, and Connie if she was clever enough, recognise the uncontrolled nature of her "tests" of her claimed ability and set up a situation where non-paranormal variables that could increase her chances of success are controlled for.

Information that says she was successful on prior uncontrolled, informal tests does not count as evidence - that sort of information, as we well know, is present regardless of whether or not the ability is present.

That would depend on how successful the ability was and whether the confounding variables that could be identified in the circumstances under which Connie seemed to have success could account for that success. As far as we know, without testing her, her success may have been far greater than you or I could ever achieve in similar circumstances.

There is no more reason to say that she has paranormal abilities than there is to say that you have paranormal abilities.

I'm not sure why it is so important for many sceptics to make these 100% statements. Scepticism is about doubt. Science is about reducing what is unknown, knowing that the search will probably never end. It seems to me all we can say about the result of this test is that the null hypothesis has not been disproven - or that, on this occasion, and under these circumstances, it has not been disproven that Connie does not have this ability.

Of course, we may also talk about the plausibility of Connie (or anyone else) having this ability. Based on the scientific ideas about how the world works, the plausibility of Connie having this ability is close to zero. Some would even say it's so close to zero that it doesn't matter. In that case, the question is whether we should have bothered to waste time and effort to conduct this test in the first place. But, having made the decision to proceed with a test, can we really then decide not to abide by the result - which is that that the null hypothesis has been not disproven on this occasion and under these circumstances.

Perhaps what I am saying is that we need to separate out the statement about the outcome of the test from the statement about plausibility.

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[phyz]

It seems to me all we can say about the result of this test is that the null hypothesis has not been disproven - or that, on this occasion, and under these circumstances, it has not been disproven that Connie does not have this ability.

BillyJoe,
I'm confused. Not the first time and it won't be the last. Where, exactly, did you come across the notion that any aspect of the MDC was about proving Connie Sonne is without paranormal abilities? That's where I'm stumped re your analysis.

The MDC has never been about proving such things don't exist. But you seem to be placing the impossible burden of proof on the JREF side.

The JREF has absolutely no such burden in the MDC. In the MDC, the claimant has sole burden of proof. They agree to the assumption of having no ability until they prove otherwise. The sugar for proving otherwise is $1M.

But the a priori assumption for all claimants is that they have absolutely no abilities whatsoever until they demonstrate them via a mutually agreed upon protocol.

Similarly, a defendant convicted of crime is presumed to be innocent and pure as the driven snow until shown otherwise by the prosecution. The burden of proof lies solely with the prosecution. The defense has no obligation to prove innocence--innocence is presumed.

In the MDC, claimants are presumed powerless until they demonstrate otherwise. The burden of proof lies solely with the claimant. They enter into the protocol under the presumption of being natural. If they can prove they are supernatural, they get $1M. If they fail, the a priori assumption of their "naturalness" stands.

 

[alfaniner]

connie sonne dowser

no, no nice words seen

(anagram would look better in all caps, but can't post those)

 

[katheist]

I still haven't seen the video, but, as I understand it, the protocol was not strictly adhered to.

BillyJoe

So....you have spent all of this time and energy posting about event that you have not even taken the time to watch? Even though the video is out there and readily available to you? Wow.

 

[Audible Click]

So....you have spent all of this time and energy posting about event that you have not even taken the time to watch? Even though the video is out there and readily available to you? Wow.

I've seen a partial video. Is a complete video available?

 

[katheist]

I've seen a partial video. Is a complete video available?

I don't believe the full video is available yet. But the partial one has been out there for a while. Just saying it would be a good idea to see what is out there before making an argument.

 

[BillyJoe]

So....you have spent all of this time and energy posting about event that you have not even taken the time to watch? Even though the video is out there and readily available to you? Wow.

I have been talking largely about the philosophy of science as it applies to the testing of any claim, using Connie only as an example. Where I have talked directly about the test of Connie's claimed abilities, I have relied on reports of others who have posted here.

BJ

 

[BillyJoe]

Originally Posted by BillyJoe
It seems to me all we can say about the result of this test is that the null hypothesis has not been disproven - or that, on this occasion, and under these circumstances, it has not been disproven that Connie does not have this ability.

BillyJoe,
I'm confused.

I'm also confused.
Aren't we saying the same thing?

Where, exactly, did you come across the notion that any aspect of the MDC was about proving Connie Sonne is without paranormal abilities? That's where I'm stumped re your analysis.

Perhaps because I haven't said that.

We have an hypothesis: "Connie has a paranormal ability"
We want to test this claim scientifically.
In order to do so, we have what we call the null hypothesis: "Connie does not have a paranormal ability".
The purpose of our test is to provide evidence that the null hypothesis - that "Connie does not have a paranormal ability" - is false.
If the test fails to provide evidence that the null hypothesis is false then the null hypothesis - that "Connie does not have a paranormal ability" - stands.

See, we are saying tha same thing.
Except for one small but important misunderstanding....

The MDC has never been about proving such things don't exist. But you seem to be placing the impossible burden of proof on the JREF side.

As you can see from the above, the JREF does not have an impossible burden.
Believe it or not, the JREF's task, if it is to be scientific, is to disprove the null hypothesis. In other words, the JREF must look for evidence that Connie does have paranormal ability. The task of all sceintists is to try to disprove current theories. The more they fail in this task, the more confidence they can have that the current theories are correct.

The JREF has absolutely no such burden in the MDC. In the MDC, the claimant has sole burden of proof. They agree to the assumption of having no ability until they prove otherwise.

The Jref has the same burden as Connie. They must work with Connie to try to disprove the null hypothesis. This is why all the dismissive, and disparaging talk before the test about Connie not having the claimed ability is completely counterproductive to the scientific enterprise engendered in this test.

But the a priori assumption for all claimants is that they have absolutely no abilities whatsoever until they demonstrate them via a mutually agreed upon protocol.

Yes.

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[fls]

No, I don't think it does. She will continue to think she has the ability whether or not she passes the test. For example, when she failed the test, she at first reasoned that her spirit guide must have deserted her. She might later reason that she should not put her powers to the test because her spirit guide will not help her in these circumstances. Later, after looking at the video and noticing that the protocol was not strictly adhered to, she decided that she was cheated out of her win. Whatever excuse she uses, she maintains her certainty about her powers.

I agree. What I meant was that she will determine whether her ability is present on any particular occasion by the results of her guessing - if she guesses well, the ability is present, if she guesses poorly, then her entity was absent on that occasion. The occasional absence of the ability is not determined a priori or independently of the results.

I think the mechanism is irrelevant anyway. So does Randi. He's not interested in how people think they do what they say they can do. He just wants them to telll him exactly what it is that they think they can actually do. He then devises a test of what they say they can do.

The mechanism is relevant if it provides you with a way to determine a priori an expectation as to the results. The use of an active drug or a placebo leads to specific expectations. The presence or absence of a microbe leads to specific expectations as to the presence of a disease. The score on an IQ test leads to specific expectations as to morbidity and mortality.

Is she? I thought she was saying that she can dowse for the correct letters. I don't know with what accuracy she feels she can do this, but surely she is saying that it is significantly better than chance. She may have a theory about how she does this, but, when it comes to the test, we're not really interested, are we? She may have the ability but be wrong about how that ability works. We really just want to know whether she can actually do it better than chance.

When I said that she guesses correctly, I meant that she guesses correctly better than chance. I don't know why I thought that would be obvious.

I still haven't seen the video, but, as I understand it, the protocol was not strictly adhered to. Also, there was a professional magician on stage handling the cards. Under these circumstances, the result perhaps is not as reliable as it could have been. And it doesn't matter that Connie agreed to professioal magician being there and handling the cards.
So, I agree: on at least one occasion Connie did not guess correctly. In other words that the null hypothesis that she cannot do this has not been disproven.

But we don't really think that those trivial variations in the recording of numbers made a difference. Nor do we really think that Banachek cheated. If you really thought that there was any point to further investigation, you would consider tightening up those points, but realistically, there's no indication that Connie stands out from the crowd of failed psychics. There's no reason to choose her as the subject of further tests.

We are not saying anything about her abilities being disproven. That is my point. We are saying that the null hypothesis - that she does not have this ability - has not been disproven.

So if she can't demonstrate that she is any different from the rest of us, why can't we say that she isn't any different from the rest of us?

Don't you mean "rubbing ***** on your face".
(At least that's how I remember it )

I was trying to make it PG-13.

I think perhaps it's not a random idea as far as Connie is concerned. I assume she didn't just pluck the idea out of thin air. Presumably she has noticed that she can identify a card hidden from her view much better than by chance alone. We, and Connie if she was clever enough, recognise the uncontrolled nature of her "tests" of her claimed ability and set up a situation where non-paranormal variables that could increase her chances of success are controlled for.

Her idea was simply based on inadequate and incomplete information, like so many of our ideas. When additional information shows that your idea is wrong, doesn't it seem reasonable to form ideas that take all the information into consideration?

That would depend on how successful the ability was and whether the confounding variables that could be identified in the circumstances under which Connie seemed to have success could account for that success. As far as we know, without testing her, her success may have been far greater than you or I could ever achieve in similar circumstances.

How could it have been "far greater"? We've seen people who claim up to 100% success under uncontrolled conditions who do poorly under controlled conditions. The level of success under uncontrolled conditions seems to be irrelevant as to subsequent success under controlled conditions (i.e. it does not serve to distinguish her from the crowd).

I'm not sure why it is so important for many sceptics to make these 100% statements.

Why does the drawing of a conclusion - the same conclusions that are drawn on the same kinds of results on most any other topic that you don't seem to find objectionable - become objectionable in this situation? If an active drug performs no better than placebo, we have no problem concluding that the drug is not effective. If a microbe is absent in the presence of a disease, we have no problem concluding that that we've picked the wrong causal agent. Why aren't we allowed to move on?

Scepticism is about doubt. Science is about reducing what is unknown, knowing that the search will probably never end. It seems to me all we can say about the result of this test is that the null hypothesis has not been disproven - or that, on this occasion, and under these circumstances, it has not been disproven that Connie does not have this ability.

Let's say that we had independent knowledge that some people have paranormal abilities and that they were able to pass tests for paranormal abilities. If someone failed those tests, would it be reasonable to say that they didn't have paranormal abilities?

Of course, we may also talk about the plausibility of Connie (or anyone else) having this ability. Based on the scientific ideas about how the world works, the plausibility of Connie having this ability is close to zero. Some would even say it's so close to zero that it doesn't matter. In that case, the question is whether we should have bothered to waste time and effort to conduct this test in the first place. But, having made the decision to proceed with a test, can we really then decide not to abide by the result - which is that that the null hypothesis has been not disproven on this occasion and under these circumstances.

Perhaps what I am saying is that we need to separate out the statement about the outcome of the test from the statement about plausibility.

regards,
BillyJoe

Why?

Linda

 

[pathphinder]

Still can't say I liked the test. 3 envelopes and 3 correct answers required. She should have went for 10 envelopes. Even on a bad day she should have gotten 2 correct. It would have taken to long though. She would have had to check her answer and recheck and then recheck. If she even did that with the 3 she had. Who really Dowses for numbers anyway??? I guess you could get proficient at it. Don't know why you would want to, but I guess you could........ Hope she keeps practicing, analizes what she did wrong and corrects it. I hope she always remembers she will never be 100% correct all the time, nobody is..........

 

[remirol]

Hope she keeps practicing, analizes what she did wrong and corrects it. I hope she always remembers she will never be 100% correct all the time, nobody is..........

What she did wrong was believe that dowsing was anything other than the ideomotor effect, and could produce results via any method other than random chance.

Believe otherwise? Take the test, fail for yourself, and see.

Can you prove us wrong? One million dollars awaits you.