CONNIE SONNE, Dowser

[BillyJoe]

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.

Well, I guess abilities could come and go.
Tony Lockett didn't kick six goals in every match. In some matches he even failed to score!

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.

Does the mechanism help in this case though?

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.

Possibly it was...um...my fault.

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.

She fails the test of plausibility, so I don't think there was a reason to test her in the first place - except for the fact that she applied for the challenge.

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?

On the basis of this result, we would continue to conclude that she isn't, but remain open to the possiblity that her ability failed her in this instance and under these circumstances.

I was trying to make it PG-13.

I doubt we have that demographic here.

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?

Again, and first of all, she doesn't pass the plausibility test. But, having decided to test her anyway, can we then just shove aside the scientific conclusion of the test. The additional information you are talking about is the result of this test. The conclusion of that test is that on this occasion and under these circumstances the null hypothesis has not been disproven.

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).

But aren't we supposed to on the look out for an outlier - the very person who changes our view, based on the evidence so far, that paranormal abilities do not exist.

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?

Except that with the usual p-value of 0.05, there is a 1 in 20 chance that the result was in error merely by chance; and there is a possiblity that the bacteria acted through an autoimmune response which produced symptoms only long after it had disappeared from the scene of the crime.
We can never be totally certain.
That is not to say that we shouldn't move on though. The lack of plausibility alone would suggest that we should.

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?

I don't think so. Their ability could have failed them on this occasion. Studying those who have the ability might actually lend credence to the contention that the ability is not always present.

Why?

Because they are two different and consecutive stages of the problem.
If something has zero plausibility, we would not normally waste limited resources looking for evidence of its existence. The exception would be that, despite its zero plausibility, a large number of people believe in this thing and that the belief in this thing is likely to cause harm.
In the above situation - and in the cases that are plausible - we may then decide to conduct a scientific trial. Having done so, and the trial having failed, I don't think we can conclude other than what that clincal trial allows us to conclude (ie that the null hypothesis not disproven). Of course the zero plausibility of the claim would remain at zero.

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[fls]

Does the mechanism help in this case though?

Well, it goes to Randi's stipulation that the test first be performed unblinded in order for the participant to confirm that their abilities really are present. As far as I can tell, this did not happen. And I consider this one of the most critical components of the test. On the one hand, it prevents the sort of argument that you and I are having. And on the other hand, it seems like it would be the best way to demonstrate to the claimant why blinding makes a difference.

She fails the test of plausibility, so I don't think there was a reason to test her in the first place - except for the fact that she applied for the challenge.

Yeah. I don't think that what is really going on is the test of a hypothesis. I suspect that is why you and I are really interested in these tests is that we are hoping for/looking for that one person who is different. We realize that plausibility is low to non-existent, and that people come to these tests with the same old story as everyone else who failed. But we can't think of any better way to find that person who is the outlier, who really can do something magical. So we continue to watch people show up for the Challenge in the hopes that sooner or later someone will show up with a story that is different and who really does perform in a way that is unexpected. I think that is why, when someone clearly isn't that outlier, they lose my further attention. They are not being judged by the standards of hypothesis testing, but rather by the standards of a screening test.

On the basis of this result, we would continue to conclude that she isn't, but remain open to the possiblity that her ability failed her in this instance and under these circumstances.

What is the sensitivity of this screening test?

Again, and first of all, she doesn't pass the plausibility test. But, having decided to test her anyway, can we then just shove aside the scientific conclusion of the test. The additional information you are talking about is the result of this test. The conclusion of that test is that on this occasion and under these circumstances the null hypothesis has not been disproven.

Scientific conclusions do take prior plausibility into account, so we aren't shoving aside the scientific conclusion. But I think that what we were really looking at was her performance during the test and afterward - looking for something that made her an outlier, rather than typical.

But aren't we supposed to on the look out for an outlier - the very person who changes our view, based on the evidence so far, that paranormal abilities do not exist.

And I think that people who manage to even get to the point of taking the Challenge are different from those who start the process, but fail. So we are somewhat more hopeful that these claimants will contain an outlier, than we are with the larger pool of potential testees. But failing, and providing the usual excuses which demonstrate that the claimant lacks the necessary insight to give credence to their prior claims, identifies Connie as a non-outlier.

Except that with the usual p-value of 0.05, there is a 1 in 20 chance that the result was in error merely by chance; and there is a possiblity that the bacteria acted through an autoimmune response which produced symptoms only long after it had disappeared from the scene of the crime.
We can never be totally certain.

You are looking at the wrong number. The p-value you reference refers to Type I error - rejecting the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis is true. What you are talking about (sorta) is Type II error - accepting the null hypothesis then the null hypothesis is false. That is determined by the beta level or power of the study. I haven't calculated what that would be for Connie's test, but it would be more error prone than 1 in 20.

However, what we are really asking is, what is the false-negative rate? What proportion of negative results will be false-negatives? And this number depends upon prior plausibility. For a more typical test, this number will be something like 5 to 15 percent. For a test like this, the number will be less than 0.2 percent. That is, more than 99.8 percent of negative results will be true negatives.

That is not to say that we shouldn't move on though. The lack of plausibility alone would suggest that we should.

I don't think so. Their ability could have failed them on this occasion. Studying those who have the ability might actually lend credence to the contention that the ability is not always present.

So if someone thinks they have diabetes because they pee a lot, and tests for diabetes are negative, you wouldn't be willing to conclude that they don't have diabetes, but rather have some other reason for peeing a lot?

Because they are two different and consecutive stages of the problem.
If something has zero plausibility, we would not normally waste limited resources looking for evidence of its existence. The exception would be that, despite its zero plausibility, a large number of people believe in this thing and that the belief in this thing is likely to cause harm.
In the above situation - and in the cases that are plausible - we may then decide to conduct a scientific trial. Having done so, and the trial having failed, I don't think we can conclude other than what that clincal trial allows us to conclude (ie that the null hypothesis not disproven). Of course the zero plausibility of the claim would remain at zero.

regards,
BillyJoe

But why is it okay for you to say the claim has zero plausibility before the test has even been done, but not okay for someone to say the claim has zero plausibility after the test has been done?

Linda

 

[pathphinder]

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.

You have to believe in what you are doing before you can actualy do it. She believes she can Dowse. Evidently for numbers on cards. So she is part of the way thier. Now she just needs to refine the method for doing so.

Yes, I believe otherwise. I would be what you would call a woo-woo. I love that term. I will use it in my writtings. That is just too kewl. No I wouldn't take your test. I don't Dowse for numbers on cards. Never have, don't think I would ever want to and you think I would fail before I started. That is just negative thinking.

Somebody will prove you wrong, if it hasn't been done already, but then thier would be more tests and who wants to spend all thier time being tested. It takes the fun out of the learned skill and not everyone has the greed factor for your million. Some people like thinks the way they are.

 

[erlando]

Now she just needs to refine the method for doing so.

She can "refine" from now to the heat-death of the universe - it won't do any difference.

Yes, I believe otherwise. I would be what you would call a woo-woo. I love that term. I will use it in my writtings. That is just too kewl.

I hope you use spellcheck in your writings.

I don't Dowse for numbers on cards.

What do you do then? Formulate it and a million dollars could be waiting for you.

Never have, don't think I would ever want to and you think I would fail before I started. That is just negative thinking.

What you call negative thinking others call being realistic..

Somebody will prove you wrong, if it hasn't been done already, but then thier would be more tests and who wants to spend all thier time being tested. It takes the fun out of the learned skill and not everyone has the greed factor for your million. Some people like thinks the way they are.

You seem to think that paranormal powers are learned skills. How on earth did you get that idea?

Would you say that I could learn to fly if I just practiced enough? If no, why not?

 

[Pixel42]

You have to believe in what you are doing before you can actualy do it.

Possibly, but what determines whether dowsing appears to work is not whether the dowser believes in it but whether the ideomotor effect can operate. No dowser, no matter how experienced they are and how much they believe in what they are doing, has ever passed a test where the ideomotor effect has been carefully and methodically excluded as a factor.

Many experienced water dowsers, for example, have applied for the JREF challenge. None have succeeded when tested under conditions which exclude the ideomotor effect, though all were utterly convinced that they would.

Tell me what you think you can dowse for, and I'll tell you how to exclude the ideomotor effect when doing so. Then try it again under those conditions, and see if it still works.

 

[fls]

You have to believe in what you are doing before you can actualy do it. She believes she can Dowse. Evidently for numbers on cards. So she is part of the way thier. Now she just needs to refine the method for doing so.

What are the ethics of speaking out before you have refined your methods, that is before you can tell whether or not what you say is true? Surely it would be unethical for Connie to say the things she has said about Maddie's family and the police if she had no idea whether or not they were true, wouldn't it? I wasn't allowed to practise medicine before I had refined my methods. What sort of restraints do you think people like you should follow before your methods have been refined? How do you determine when you have reached the point where you are no longer spreading possible falsehoods?

Yes, I believe otherwise. I would be what you would call a woo-woo. I love that term. I will use it in my writtings. That is just too kewl. No I wouldn't take your test. I don't Dowse for numbers on cards. Never have, don't think I would ever want to and you think I would fail before I started. That is just negative thinking.

Somebody will prove you wrong, if it hasn't been done already, but then thier would be more tests and who wants to spend all thier time being tested. It takes the fun out of the learned skill and not everyone has the greed factor for your million. Some people like thinks the way they are.

Unfortunately, those sorts of claims are unbelievable, since it is easy for you/anyone to come here and simply make stuff up.

Linda

 

[remirol]

You have to believe in what you are doing before you can actualy do it. She believes she can Dowse. Evidently for numbers on cards. So she is part of the way thier. Now she just needs to refine the method for doing so.

Just belief is not sufficient to make the impossible possible.

I might believe that I could fly, and might jump off a cliff. I would go "splat" at the bottom, regardless of my belief.

Yes, I believe otherwise. I would be what you would call a woo-woo. I love that term. I will use it in my writtings. That is just too kewl. No I wouldn't take your test. I don't Dowse for numbers on cards. Never have, don't think I would ever want to and you think I would fail before I started. That is just negative thinking.

Doesn't have to be cards. You can attempt to dowse for anything you want. Your pick. Water. Gold. Iron. Doesn't matter. And yes, I think you would fail. I could be wrong, but I doubt it; nobody's ever succeeded yet, and many people have tried. Nobody's even come close. I see no reason to believe you'd be the first.

There's a million dollars waiting if you're right and I'm wrong.

Somebody will prove you wrong, if it hasn't been done already,

The JREF has $1,000,000.00 in U.S. Dollars that says neither you nor anyone else can prove them wrong.

but then thier would be more tests and who wants to spend all thier time being tested. It takes the fun out of the learned skill and not everyone has the greed factor for your million. Some people like thinks the way they are.

It would be precisely two tests, in fact. One preliminary, and one final.

And you don't have to want the million for yourself. You could donate it to charity, for example. Think of all the things you could do with a million dollars -- it wouldn't have to be for you at all.

But... you would have to actually be able to do what you claim you can. You claim dowsing isn't just the ideomotor effect combined with random chance? Great. Show us. Apply for the MDC. Or find someone else who's willing. The JREF is always willing to test dowsers. So far, 100% of them have been unable to do any better than chance. Will you be the first?

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
Yes, I believe otherwise. I would be what you would call a woo-woo. I love that term. I will use it in my writtings. That is just too kewl. No I wouldn't take your test. I don't Dowse for numbers on cards. Never have, don't think I would ever want to and you think I would fail before I started. That is just negative thinking.
...

Would you consider it positive thinking if I phound a path for you to define your claim and not simply spout unverifiable off-topic stuff in another thread?

 

[Uncayimmy]

I might believe that I could fly, and might jump off a cliff. I would go "splat" at the bottom, regardless of my belief.

Evidence?

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Evidence?

Common sense.

 

[Denver]

"Flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."

-- Douglas Adams

 

[pathphinder]

Possibly, but what determines whether dowsing appears to work is not whether the dowser believes in it but whether the ideomotor effect can operate. No dowser, no matter how experienced they are and how much they believe in what they are doing, has ever passed a test where the ideomotor effect has been carefully and methodically excluded as a factor.

Many experienced water dowsers, for example, have applied for the JREF challenge. None have succeeded when tested under conditions which exclude the ideomotor effect, though all were utterly convinced that they would.

Tell me what you think you can dowse for, and I'll tell you how to exclude the ideomotor effect when doing so. Then try it again under those conditions, and see if it still works.

I am actualy looking up the Ideomotor effect on the internet. It is interesting. The problem for me is some of these Dowsers actuly find stuff sometimes. I will read more of the Ideomotor effect.

 

[remirol]

I am actualy looking up the Ideomotor effect on the internet. It is interesting. The problem for me is some of these Dowsers actuly find stuff sometimes. I will read more of the Ideomotor effect.

Have you ever heard the saying "even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile"? Yeah, this is similar.

Though, to be perfectly fair, there are occasionally other circumstances involved; a person who has been employed as part of a general contracting/plumbing crew for a long time, for example, may be well-versed in where water pipes are typically laid underneath a yard simply from having worked in the field for many years -- and may unconsciously know some visual clues that indicate where the pipes are likely to be.

That same person may then proceed to convince themselves that they are finding these same pipes via dowsing, whereas they're actually just making educated guesses based on general knowledge, and dowsing has nothing at all to do with it.

To someone who isn't familiar with this sort of thing, it looks like dowsing actually works; to someone who knows the tricks, it's just common sense.

 

[rjh01]

It is very easy to successfully douse for water in Australia.

Method
1. Get out your dousing stick (or any other instrument) and use it.
2. Very soon after say that there is water under here.
3. Accept payment
4. The owners drill for water and find it.

Important. It does not matter where in step 2 you say there is water. There is water just about anywhere in large % of Australia. Do not worry about the rest of Australia as nobody would be stupid enough to ask you to douse for water in that part of Australia. The only limitation is that you must say it is present somewhere on the property.

The other thing to tell the people paying you is to get them to spread the word about how good you are. That is where most of your future income comes from. Also give a 90 day money back guarantee that they find water. If anyone does not drill deep enough you do not want them to tell anyone. So giving them their money back without asking any questions is a cheap price to pay.

This notice is given as a public service announcement for anyone that wants to go into dousing. No warranty given.

 

[pakeha]

re: Connie Sonne, dowser

I am actualy looking up the Ideomotor effect on the internet. It is interesting. The problem for me is some of these Dowsers actuly find stuff sometimes. I will read more of the Ideomotor effect.

hi, pathphinder.
I call that very handsome of you.
Reading up on the Ideomotor effect is extrememly interesting and as a supplement, I would strongly recommend watching the video of JR in Australia, devising a way to 'test' the dowsing abilities of men who have spent a lifetime dowsing.

 

[Pixel42]

The problem for me is some of these Dowsers actuly find stuff sometimes.

A pianist who has learned to sight read music usually hits the right notes. Take the music away, though ...

A dowser who has learned to read the landscape will often find stuff. Take the visual clues his unconscious mind is processing away, though ...

 

[rjh01]

hi, pathphinder.
I call that very handsome of you.
Reading up on the Ideomotor effect is extrememly interesting and as a supplement, I would strongly recommend watching the video of JR in Australia, devising a way to 'test' the dowsing abilities of men who have spent a lifetime dowsing.

The link is http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=james+randi+in+australia&search_type=&aq=f

Why did they say they failed? Can that reason be verified?

 

[Klaymore]

You have to believe in what you are doing before you can actualy do it. She believes she can Dowse. Evidently for numbers on cards. So she is part of the way thier. Now she just needs to refine the method for doing so.

Yes, I believe otherwise. I would be what you would call a woo-woo. I love that term. I will use it in my writtings. That is just too kewl. No I wouldn't take your test. I don't Dowse for numbers on cards. Never have, don't think I would ever want to and you think I would fail before I started. That is just negative thinking.

Somebody will prove you wrong, if it hasn't been done already, but then thier would be more tests and who wants to spend all thier time being tested. It takes the fun out of the learned skill and not everyone has the greed factor for your million. Some people like thinks the way they are.

Dude, dowse yourself up a dictionary and grammar while you're at it. Just saying...

 

[EHocking]

Well, I guess abilities could come and go.
Tony Lockett didn't kick six goals in every match. In some matches he even failed to score!...

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.

 

[BillyJoe]

Well, it goes to Randi's stipulation that the test first be performed unblinded in order for the participant to confirm that their abilities really are present. As far as I can tell, this did not happen. And I consider this one of the most critical components of the test. On the one hand, it prevents the sort of argument that you and I are having. And on the other hand, it seems like it would be the best way to demonstrate to the claimant why blinding makes a difference.

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...

Yeah. I don't think that what is really going on is the test of a hypothesis. I suspect that is why you and I are really interested in these tests is that we are hoping for/looking for that one person who is different. We realize that plausibility is low to non-existent, and that people come to these tests with the same old story as everyone else who failed. But we can't think of any better way to find that person who is the outlier, who really can do something magical. So we continue to watch people show up for the Challenge in the hopes that sooner or later someone will show up with a story that is different and who really does perform in a way that is unexpected. I think that is why, when someone clearly isn't that outlier, they lose my further attention. They are not being judged by the standards of hypothesis testing, but rather by the standards of a screening test.

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

What is the sensitivity of this screening test?

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.

Scientific conclusions do take prior plausibility into account, so we aren't shoving aside the scientific conclusion. But I think that what we were really looking at was her performance during the test and afterward - looking for something that made her an outlier, rather than typical.

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

And I think that people who manage to even get to the point of taking the Challenge are different from those who start the process, but fail. So we are somewhat more hopeful that these claimants will contain an outlier, than we are with the larger pool of potential testees. But failing, and providing the usual excuses which demonstrate that the claimant lacks the necessary insight to give credence to their prior claims, identifies Connie as a non-outlier.

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.

You are looking at the wrong number. The p-value you reference refers to Type I error - rejecting the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis is true. What you are talking about (sorta) is Type II error - accepting the null hypothesis then the null hypothesis is false. That is determined by the beta level or power of the study. I haven't calculated what that would be for Connie's test, but it would be more error prone than 1 in 20.

Oops, yes, I did learn that lesson, but it seems I haven't quite got it at the tips of my fingers as you have.
In any case, the point is that we could still be wrong.

However, what we are really asking is, what is the false-negative rate? What proportion of negative results will be false-negatives? And this number depends upon prior plausibility. For a more typical test, this number will be something like 5 to 15 percent. For a test like this, the number will be less than 0.2 percent. That is, more than 99.8 percent of negative results will be true negatives.

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 if someone thinks they have diabetes because they pee a lot, and tests for diabetes are negative, you wouldn't be willing to conclude that they don't have diabetes, but rather have some other reason for peeing a lot?

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.

But why is it okay for you to say the claim has zero plausibility before the test has even been done, but not okay for someone to say the claim has zero plausibility after the test has been done?

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