CONNIE SONNE, Dowser

[remirol]

I don't think this analogy is fitting in the case of paranormal claims. Most of them bang on about how accurately that predict/dowse and how often they are accurate.

A better analogy would be that an Olympic long jump record holder may not be able to jump a record distance every time - but should be able to jump 5m every time.

I'm not a terribly skilfull snooker player, but I cannot recall never potting a ball in a game.

This is not down to chance - you can either can do it or can not.

Same in the case of many paranormal claims. They are inevitably claims of skills or abilities. Lockett may not kick 6 goals each match, but in a "test" situation where he's just standing 30m in front of goals with no one else on the pitch you'd bet the farm on him kicking 10 for 10.

<pedantry>

• 9 of 10, to allow for him tripping over the line once ("The grass got in my eyes!")
• ...and what about those 147 break games by your opponent?

</pedantry>

However, I think the general point is certainly valid -- paranormal claimants invariably claim a success ratio well beyond the amount one would expect from random chance, and thus should be expected to perform at least somewhere _near_ that level.

Also consider the "I can levitate!" claim -- that's a binary test, no odds involved. Either you can do it and keep doing it while we rule out all wires, staging, trickery, etc., or you can't do it.

 

[Pixel42]

Hey, I hadn't thought about that untill now, but I think you are right: I'm pretty sure there was no preliminary unblinded test in this instance. Hmmm...

It's in the agreed protocol:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4343938#post4343938

OPEN TEST INSTRUCTIONS:

JREF staff or a volunteer tester will place the remaining un-enveloped cards (jack, queen, king of each suit) face-up on the card table. Ms. Sonne will be asked to dowse for the jack of hearts, the king of clubs, etc. until she feels sure her dowsing abilities are working. Ms. Sonne will not be permitted to touch the cards.

Once it has been established that Ms. Sonne's dowsing abilities are working to her satisfaction, the closed test will begin.

but I got the impression whilst watching the test live that neither Connie nor Banachek understood why they were doing it, so it was fumbled rather.

 

[BillyJoe]

I got the impression whilst watching the test live that neither Connie nor Banachek understood why they were doing it, so it was fumbled rather.

Perhaps they could have had these cards covered up but allowed Connie to sneak a look, before dowsing for them.

(Well, at least, edge, seemed pretty happy with this test of his abilities )

 

[fls]

It's in the agreed protocol:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4343938#post4343938

but I got the impression whilst watching the test live that neither Connie nor Banachek understood why they were doing it, so it was fumbled rather.

I saw that (the protocol, not the live test), but that didn't sound like a good test of her abilities. She never claimed that she could dowse face-up cards, because why would it occur to anyone to consider that remarkable? More attention should have been paid to that part of the protocol - i.e. it should have the appearance of blocking sensory information whilst still allowing Connie clues through normal means. For example, the cards are face-down, but Banachek (or a friend of Connie's who is unpracticed in avoiding reacting) knows which card is which, so that Connie can subconsciously pick up clues from his reactions, or the table is highly polished so that reflections are glimpsed, etc.

Linda

 

[Pixel42]

I saw that (the protocol, not the live test), but that didn't sound like a good test of her abilities. She never claimed that she could dowse face-up cards, because why would it occur to anyone to consider that remarkable?

I thought dowsers always maintain that they are not consciously moving the pendulum/twig/whatever? Which, of course, they aren't if it's actually the ideomotor effect that's moving it. So assuming she didn't consciously move the pendulum during the open test or the closed one, the fact that Connie's pendulum pointed to the right cards when she could see what they were but not when she couldn't would be evidence that it is indeed the ideomotor effect that's responsible, not her mysterious entities.

 

[laca]

Yes, but I wonder what the standards of a screening test are: You failed this test, therefore you don't have paranormal abilities?

No, it means that before the test the probability was very small and after the failure it is even smaller.

 

[EHocking]

<pedantry>

• 9 of 10, to allow for him tripping over the line once ("The grass got in my eyes!")

You're thinking of David Beckham taking penatlies. Plugger is more likely to take a "time out" to clock an opponent.

• ...and what about those 147 break games by your opponent?

My opponents are not that skilful either!

</pedantry>

However, I think the general point is certainly valid -- paranormal claimants invariably claim a success ratio well beyond the amount one would expect from random chance, and thus should be expected to perform at least somewhere _near_ that level.

Dowsing drops into this category. The important phrase for this sort of claim is show dowsing success "significantly above random chance". In Sonne's Challenge, because of the small number of trials, they had to set the bar and 3 from 3 to attain that significance.

Also consider the "I can levitate!" claim -- that's a binary test, no odds involved. Either you can do it and keep doing it while we rule out all wires, staging, trickery, etc., or you can't do it.

Yes. In that case no probability target is required.

 

[fls]

Yes, but I wonder what the standards of a screening test are: You failed this test, therefore you don't have paranormal abilities?

What would you use for comparison? How would you identify people with paranormal abilities?

Do you mean what percentage of people with paranormal ability will this test pick up? I don't know, but I don't think it you could be confident that is was 100%. Therefore there must always remain the possiblity that a true ability could be missed.

Sure. Just like there really could be aether, disease could be caused by four humors, and the earth could be 6000 years old.

She didn't look like an outlier, but Tony Lockett didn't look like an outlier in some of his games either.

What if Tony Lockett never looked like an outlier in any of his games, but simply asked you to assume that he was an outlier based on some practice kicks only he or his friends and family witnessed? What if you decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and went to the trouble of asking him to show how well he could kick under conditions where it would be easy for him to do so, and he was unable to score a goal on that occasion, despite multiple attempts?

She doesn't. and I have probably lost as much interest in her as you have. But there is always the possibility that we are wrong - a fact we would leave sleeping at the back of our minds rather than bouncing around in the front of our eyes.

I don't think there's a problem with saying what we are thinking. I think it's actually of benefit to make our level of doubt (or level of non-doubt) more explicit rather than less. There's a good article in the new Skeptic magazine about distinguishing various levels of implausibility when teaching critical thinking, not just plausibility.

I'm not sure how you could calculate the false negative rate, but I am happy to agree that it would be less than 0.2%. The point, though, is that we can have no way of being certain that it is zero.

So what? We aren't that certain about anything.

I'm sure, even with diabetes, there would be some cases where the diagnosis might be missed. I suppose it would depend on who did the testing, which tests were used, how accurate the testing is, and what cut off values were used.

How about if no doctors had ever seen diabetes and the test was negative?

Zero plausibility means there is no known mechanism. This is the same before and after the test, because the test is not a test of mechanism. The test is a test of the existence of this ability. Before the test, there was no evidence that this sort of ability exists. After the test - if the test fails (as in this case) - there is still no evidence that this sort of ability exists.
My conclusion is that there is zero plausibility and no evidence that this ability exists. Others want to jump to the conclusion that there is zero plausibility and that the ability does not exist. They want to conclude that the ability does not exist but I am willing only to say that there is no evidence that it exists.
Call me cautious, but that is exactly what science (and history) cautions us to be.

regards,
BillyJoe

Why do you think that what you are saying is any different from what phyz said? How does "this doesn't exist" mean anything other than "there is no evidence this exists"?

Linda

 

[GimmePepsi]

Perhaps they could have had these cards covered up but allowed Connie to sneak a look, before dowsing for them.

Actually, that's similar to how I think the "open" test should have been done. I believe in general the open test should be as identical as possible to the closed test, with the only exception being that the testee knows the right answer in advance.

So, she (or someone) should have picked a card, showed everyone (including herself) what it was, put it into the sealed double envelopes (or however the cards were prepared for the real test), and then placed it in front of her. Then she should have done her schtick to "identify" the card, and then cut it open to see she was right. Or maybe do it with two known cards, and then pick one to dowse for and then do it. Whatever it is, she'll be expected to succeed. If she states she "feels the power" then, it'll be difficult for her to explain later why the power deserted her when the exact same thing was done, the only difference being whether she pre-knows the cards.

As it was, she was all like "Dude, why are you having me dowse the card when I can plainly see it face up? What is this supposed to be proving? Duh."

The open test was too different from the closed test. It was like two unrelated tests. The ability to gain mileage later out of the fact that one passed and the other failed was therefore lost.

 

[BillyJoe]

Yes, but I wonder what the standards of a screening test are: You failed this test, therefore you don't have paranormal abilities?

No, it means that before the test the probability was very small and after the failure it is even smaller.

Well, I agree.
But most other posters are willing to conclude from this test that Connie has no paranormal powers.

 

[BillyJoe]

Actually, that's similar to how I think the "open" test should have been done. I believe in general the open test should be as identical as possible to the closed test, with the only exception being that the testee knows the right answer in advance.

This method seemed to work in dvining tests that JREF has conducted many times in the past...

In the water devining test, there were 10 pipes and water would be run through one of them and the dowser would walk over all 10 pipes and identify the one containing the water by noticing which pipe caused his dowsing rod to swing or dip or whatever.
In the "open" test, the dowser would be told which pipe contained the water and the idea was to identify this pipe in the usual way to ensure that nothing was interfering with the operation of the dowsing rod. That all seemed very sensible and reasonable and none of the dowsers actually felt silly doing it.

...so I wonder why they changed the "open" test on this occasion, instead of following a tried and true method?

BJ

 

[remirol]

But most other posters are willing to conclude from this test that Connie has no paranormal powers.

Of course we are. There's absolutely no reason to reach any other conclusion, since nobody has _ever_ demonstrated otherwise. And until Connie _does_ perform such a demonstration, that conclusion will safely serve us in all practical matters related to the issue.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't remain willing to accept new evidence of Connie actually _having_ said powers, if such evidence surfaces in the future -- but there's a difference between having an open mind and setting up a "24 HOUR PARKING" sign on your earhole.

You can waste an enormous amount of mental time and effort with semantics on this, but in the end the distinction the pedantically-precise statement "Connie was unable to demonstrate her claimed powers when tested by the MDC" makes is only meaningful in theoretical discussions about the possibility of such powers existing. For practical matters, it is simpler and more importantly, clearer to say "She doesn't have them."

Remember, this isn't just about talking to people who have the critical-thinking and scientific mental framework in place; this is about educating others, as well.

 

[BillyJoe]

What would you use for comparison? How would you identify people with paranormal abilities?

There is no example yet of a paranormal event so no comparison is possible. And it's not a matter of identifying a person with paranormal abilities. Rather you could find evidence that a person has paranormal abilities if that person could achieve a particular feat significantly above chance under controlled conditions.

Sure. Just like there really could be aether, disease could be caused by four humors, and the earth could be 6000 years old.

But I would think there was quite a bit of actual positive evidence against all of these propositions. That is not the case with paranormal abilities.

What if Tony Lockett never looked like an outlier in any of his games, but simply asked you to assume that he was an outlier based on some practice kicks only he or his friends and family witnessed? What if you decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and went to the trouble of asking him to show how well he could kick under conditions where it would be easy for him to do so, and he was unable to score a goal on that occasion, despite multiple attempts?

It is still possible that he could do it, but obviously no evidence that he could.

I don't think there's a problem with saying what we are thinking. I think it's actually of benefit to make our level of doubt (or level of non-doubt) more explicit rather than less. There's a good article in the new Skeptic magazine about distinguishing various levels of implausibility when teaching critical thinking, not just plausibility.

Sounds familiar. Was it about comparing the Loch Ness Monster with Flying Saucers?

So what? We aren't that certain about anything.

So why pretend that we are?

How about if no doctors had ever seen diabetes and the test was negative?

I seem to have missed your point here.
(If no doctors had ever seen diabetes, how could there be a test for it?)

Why do you think that what you are saying is any different from what phyz said? How does "this doesn't exist" mean anything other than "there is no evidence this exists"?

I think this is the heart of our disagreement.

To expand it a little, I am happy only to say: "there is no evidence that this thing exists, but I cannot say that this thing does not exist because I have no evidence that it does not exist". This would apply even in the case where the idea has zero plausibility (ie no known mechanism) because there may be mechanism we don't know about.

For me, to say: "This thing does not exist", would require positive evidence that it does not exist. Such as the positive evidence that the aether does not exist. Even if it is impossible to find positive evidence that a thing does not exist (because you can't search every corner of the universe), that still doesn't justify you saying that the thing does not exist (though you would probably be justified in losing interest in the question).

There was no evidence for atoms when they were first proposed. So would the ancient Greeks have been justified in saying: "Atoms do not exist", or would a more tentative approach have been more appropriate: "There is no evidence that atoms exist"

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[BillyJoe]

remirol,

I think you mean exactly the same as what I mean but you're unwilling to actually say it.

For practical matters, it is simpler and more importantly, clearer to say "She doesn't have them."

But it is also wrong.

Remember, this isn't just about talking to people who have the critical-thinking and scientific mental framework in place; this is about educating others, as well.

And when the Loch Ness monster turns up one day?

 

[laca]

And when the Loch Ness monster turns up one day?

Then I won't go skinny dipping in the lake anymore...

 

[remirol]

I think you mean exactly the same as what I mean but you're unwilling to actually say it.

No, I meant what I said.

But it is also wrong.

But whether it is wrong according to a pedantically precise definition is not important.

Whether the people we are theoretically educating get the point, however, is important, and when you get too pedantic, then people stop listening and you fail.

And when the Loch Ness monster turns up one day?

Then we can all be very surprised and say "Well, I guess we were wrong."

I will not lose any sleep over it, nor am I going to suffer any significant damage to my ego for reaching a reasonable conclusion ("no such thing") from the evidence available at the time, even if later evidence indicates that conclusion was incorrect.

 

[Nankay]

I believe the open non-blind test was performed at the beginning. It's not so much a test of ability, but rather an opportunity for the testee to check to see if his/her equipment is in working order. This nips at least one excuse in the bud. Ms. Sonne had an opportunity to dowse cards face up or face down or both if she so chose.

 

[EHocking]

I believe the open non-blind test was performed at the beginning. It's not so much a test of ability, but rather an opportunity for the testee to check to see if his/her equipment is in working order. This nips at least one excuse in the bud. Ms. Sonne had an opportunity to dowse cards face up or face down or both if she so chose.

... and the opportunity to state that her helping entities (or whatever) weren't going to show, or that conditions were not right. Difficult to do, I agree, in front of an audience, but would have stood her reputation in better stead that making the excuse after failing.

 

[Stacy Head]

News Alert:

Dowser who does not pass MDC by guessing incorrectly=FAIL

Get it?

Dowser claims aliens do not want her to reveal her powers=FAIL

Dowser claims later she was cheated=FAIL

Dowser who claims to help families of missing persons=VULTURE

 

[fls]

There is no example yet of a paranormal event so no comparison is possible. And it's not a matter of identifying a person with paranormal abilities. Rather you could find evidence that a person has paranormal abilities if that person could achieve a particular feat significantly above chance under controlled conditions.

That's not how people with paranormal abilities are identified in the real world. And there are certainly a plethora of events that have been identified as paranormal according to my TV schedule.

But I would think there was quite a bit of actual positive evidence against all of these propositions. That is not the case with paranormal abilities.

What are you considering positive evidence against the four humours or aether (for example)?

It is still possible that he could do it, but obviously no evidence that he could.

So what does that mean from a practical point of view? You've got a bunch of guys who claim to be good kickers, but you've never seen any of them kick except Tony Lockett and his failed demonstration. Do you take any or all of them on your team? Do you take Tony or not?

Sounds familiar. Was it about comparing the Loch Ness Monster with Flying Saucers?

Yes. Although it's possible that we show little creativity in our choice of examples.

So why pretend that we are?

Huh? When have we ever pretended that we are 100% certain?

I seem to have missed your point here.
(If no doctors had ever seen diabetes, how could there be a test for it?)

The same way that there is a test for a paranormal event yet no one has ever seen it (according to what you said earlier).

I think this is the heart of our disagreement.

To expand it a little, I am happy only to say: "there is no evidence that this thing exists, but I cannot say that this thing does not exist because I have no evidence that it does not exist". This would apply even in the case where the idea has zero plausibility (ie no known mechanism) because there may be mechanism we don't know about.

For me, to say: "This thing does not exist", would require positive evidence that it does not exist. Such as the positive evidence that the aether does not exist.

What is positive evidence that the aether does not exist?

Even if it is impossible to find positive evidence that a thing does not exist (because you can't search every corner of the universe), that still doesn't justify you saying that the thing does not exist (though you would probably be justified in losing interest in the question).

There was no evidence for atoms when they were first proposed. So would the ancient Greeks have been justified in saying: "Atoms do not exist", or would a more tentative approach have been more appropriate: "There is no evidence that atoms exist"

regards,
BillyJoe

That's not a good example, since 'atoms' remains a useful explanation for the set of observations that it has to explain. A better example is aether (or paranormal abilities, for that matter), where the set of observations which aether had to explain now are better explained by an idea which encompasses a more complete set of observations.

What is the difference between "this thing doesn't exist" and "there is no evidence this thing exists"? How would this difference affect your thoughts or actions (or how would you expect it to affect others')?

Linda