CONNIE SONNE, Dowser

[BillyJoe]

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.

I'm not sure that I'd be concerned about how they're identified in the real world and in TV schedules. (Perhaps I've lost the thread of the argument here because I don't really understand why you made this response.)

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?

I don't think our practical points of view (yours and mine) would actually differ much if at all.

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

When you say "There is no X"
(Maybe I meant sound 100% certain)

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 still don't see what you're getting at.
Randi tests for paranormal events all the time despite no one ever having seen a paranormal event. But it would seem a little strange to test for a medical condition that no one has ever seen or claimed to have. I suppose the difference is that a paranormal event can be defined, but what can it mean to define a medical condition that no one has ever seen or claim to have.

What is positive evidence that the aether does not exist?

Michelson_Morley.

That's not a good example, since 'atoms' remains a useful explanation for the set of observations that it has to explain.

I meant at the time Democritus coined the term "atom". At that time there was no evidence that atoms exist and, therefore, if phyz was around in Greece in 450 BCE and heard of this hypothesis, he would have said been inclined to say "Atoms do not exist". I would have been inclined to say "There is no evidence that atoms exist". Phyz's statement would, of course, have been incorrect.

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')?

The difference is accuracy. It might make no practical difference, but accuracy matters. There is simply no evidence that this thing exists, but we sure don't have evidence that it does not exist.

BJ

 

[EHocking]

...I still don't see what you're getting at.
Randi tests for paranormal events all the time despite no one ever having seen a paranormal event.

No. Randi challenges people who claim to have seen or can perform a paranormal event/skill. So the statement isn't quite accurate, IMO.

But it would seem a little strange to test for a medical condition that no one has ever seen or claimed to have. I suppose the difference is that a paranormal event can be defined, but what can it mean to define a medical condition that no one has ever seen or claim to have.

Cello_scrotum^WP

 

[fls]

I'm not sure that I'd be concerned about how they're identified in the real world and in TV schedules. (Perhaps I've lost the thread of the argument here because I don't really understand why you made this response.)

You asked about the sensitivity of the test. If you want to know the sensitivity, then you need to compare the test with other ways of identifying paranormal events. The test should be able to identify as paranormal those same events that are generally recognized as paranormal in the real world.

When you say "There is no X"
(Maybe I meant sound 100% certain)

My concern is that we are allowed to sound certain for some topics, but not for others, even when our relative degrees of certainty are the same or similar. That is, this argument doesn't come up if I say something like, "there is no planet Vulcan in the vicinity of Mercury" or "there is no aether". I suspect that this isn't about certainty as much as it is about the need to appear conciliatory on topics in which some people are heavily invested.

I still don't see what you're getting at.
Randi tests for paranormal events all the time despite no one ever having seen a paranormal event. But it would seem a little strange to test for a medical condition that no one has ever seen or claimed to have. I suppose the difference is that a paranormal event can be defined, but what can it mean to define a medical condition that no one has ever seen or claim to have.

In both cases we can propose that we would see a particular result if the effect was present. And people do claim to have medical conditions that as far as we can tell are non-existent.

Michelson_Morley.

Huh? How is that positive evidence that aether doesn't exist? All we can say is that it wasn't present in the space that we tested.

I meant at the time Democritus coined the term "atom". At that time there was no evidence that atoms exist and, therefore, if phyz was around in Greece in 450 BCE and heard of this hypothesis, he would have said been inclined to say "Atoms do not exist". I would have been inclined to say "There is no evidence that atoms exist". Phyz's statement would, of course, have been incorrect.

Both of you would have been incorrect, since the evidence was that matter was composed of 'something'. But how is what you would say not a denial of 'atom' as a useful explanation in the same way that phyz's statement is a denial?

The difference is accuracy. It might make no practical difference, but accuracy matters. There is simply no evidence that this thing exists, but we sure don't have evidence that it does not exist.

BJ

Well, explain to me why you care so deeply about accuracy on this particular topic, but you are comfortable using sloppy language when it comes to 'aether', then.

Linda

 

[rjh01]

The test is up on youtube. Has been last six hours.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_qiG9PUiaQ part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USw7XXT0RXk part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zavQQe76xS8 part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coLE93t1R0A part 4

One comment. At the start he says that this is the three which is one you did not get. But he said that BEFORE removing the card. This may be because he looked at the card before removing it. Either that or he is eligible for the MDC himself.

rjh01 now runs away.

 

[pakeha]

Thanks for the heads-up, rjh01

 

[rjh01]

Just noticed an error in my last paragraph. I was referring to the start of the last video.

 

[BillyJoe]

My concern is that we are allowed to sound certain for some topics, but not for others, even when our relative degrees of certainty are the same or similar. That is, this argument doesn't come up if I say something like, "there is no planet Vulcan in the vicinity of Mercury" or "there is no aether".

Those situations are different because there is positive evidence that there is no planet Vulcan in the vicinity of Mercury and there is positive evidence that there is no aether. As yet we have no positive evidence against paranormal ability.

I suspect that this isn't about certainty as much as it is about the need to appear conciliatory on topics in which some people are heavily invested.

That is not my position though.

Huh? How is that positive evidence that aether doesn't exist? All we can say is that it wasn't present in the space that we tested.

Okay, fair enough...sort of
The aether was proposed to be the absolute frame against which all motion is relative. That absolute frame against which all motion is relative was found to be non-existent by the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Both of you would have been incorrect, since the evidence was that matter was composed of 'something'. But how is what you would say not a denial of 'atom' as a useful explanation in the same way that phyz's statement is a denial?

I simply said that there was no evidence for the existence of atoms in Greece in 440 BC. If you think that statement is false, what was that evidence?

Well, explain to me why you care so deeply about accuracy on this particular topic, but you are comfortable using sloppy language when it comes to 'aether', then.

I don't think that is the case as I have explained above.

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[laca]

Those situations are different because there is positive evidence that there is no planet Vulcan in the vicinity of Mercury and there is positive evidence that there is no aether. As yet we have no positive evidence against paranormal ability.

Do you really think there can be positive evidence against paranormal abilities? How about positive evidence against the pink unicorn?

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Do you really think there can be positive evidence against paranormal abilities? How about positive evidence against the pink unicorn?

I can not answer for you of course, BillyJoe, but since I regularly try to remind people of it:

Yes, it seems possible that evidence for a paranormal (perinormal, supernatural, let's ditch the semantics for now) will be presented to us. The operative word is "possible".

Very unlikely - like the Lions winning the Super Bowl next year and the Pistons winning the NBA crown combined - but possible.



Pink unicorns, perhaps no. Some sort of brain/body function or a new discovery in physics/chemistry, perhaps yes. Wouldn't that be amazing?

 

[BillyJoe]

Do you really think there can be positive evidence against paranormal abilities? How about positive evidence against the pink unicorn?

No.

But, as I said previously, just because it is impossible to find positive evidence against something does not negate the fact that you would need positive evidence against it in order to be able to say "there is no X".

 

[BillyJoe]

Yes, it seems possible that evidence for a paranormal (perinormal, supernatural, let's ditch the semantics for now) will be presented to us. The operative word is "possible".

I think you answering a different question.

 

[BillyJoe]

The aether was proposed to be the absolute frame against which all motion is relative. That absolute frame against which all motion is relative was found to be non-existent by the Michelson-Morley experiment.

I was slightly incorrect here. The aether was originally postulated to be the medium through which light travels. In that sense, it also acted as an absolute frame. That was until difficulties with it introduced the idea that moving objects dragged aether along with them. In Newtonian physics, however, it was the absolute reference frame.

 

[laca]

I can not answer for you of course, BillyJoe, but since I regularly try to remind people of it:

Yes, it seems possible that evidence for a paranormal (perinormal, supernatural, let's ditch the semantics for now) will be presented to us. The operative word is "possible".

That is not what I was asking. I was talking about positive evidence against.

 

[laca]

No.

But, as I said previously, just because it is impossible to find positive evidence against something does not negate the fact that you would need positive evidence against it in order to be able to say "there is no X".

So we can never say "there are no paranormal abilities". Just like I said earlier (possibly somewhere else): as time goes on without positive evidence for it, the probability of it approaches 0. And since we cannot know anything for sure, we have to draw a line where infinitesimally likely and impossible are the same.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

That is not what I was asking. I was talking about positive evidence against.

I misunderstood.

Hasn't this become a discussion for the sake of discussing though?

 

[fls]

Those situations are different because there is positive evidence that there is no planet Vulcan in the vicinity of Mercury and there is positive evidence that there is no aether. As yet we have no positive evidence against paranormal ability.

I'm sorry. I still don't understand. In all cases it appears that they looked for something and didn't find it. I don't understand how not finding something is "positive evidence" or how not finding something is sometimes positive evidence and sometimes not.

That is not my position though.

What is your position then? That you are not treating them differently in the first place?

Okay, fair enough...sort of
The aether was proposed to be the absolute frame against which all motion is relative. That absolute frame against which all motion is relative was found to be non-existent by the Michelson-Morley experiment.

I think we can all agree that it wasn't present in the Michelson-Morley experiment, just like we can all agree that Connie's abilities weren't present at the TAM demonstration. I just want to understand at what point 'not present' becomes 'non-existent'.

I'm not trying to be a dick or disingenuous or anything like that. I'm just trying to understand how you are making this distinction.

I simply said that there was no evidence for the existence of atoms in Greece in 440 BC. If you think that statement is false, what was that evidence?

That stuff was made of 'something'. There wasn't enough information available to constrain the idea beyond that. Certainly the available constraints didn't preclude the idea like the idea of paranormal abilities does.

I don't think that is the case as I have explained above.

regards,
BillyJoe

Then help me to find a way to distinguish them.

Linda

 

[fls]

I misunderstood.

Hasn't this become a discussion for the sake of discussing though?

Ummm...this is the JREF forum. What did you expect?

Did you wander in here by accident?

Linda

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Ummm...this is the JREF forum. What did you expect?

Did you wander in here by accident?

Linda

I remember debates - even heated ones that still remained civil - that actually taught me something.
Debates that made me respect the participants because they actually said something.

Perhaps I have grown. Perhaps the forum does not feature the talent it used to and many veterans are worn down. Perhaps a little of both.

I am not blaming anyone, though. It is what it is.

 

[LashL]

I remember debates - even heated ones that still remained civil - that actually taught me something.
Debates that made me respect the participants because they actually said something.

Perhaps I have grown. Perhaps the forum does not feature the talent it used to and many veterans are worn down. Perhaps a little of both.

I am not blaming anyone, though. It is what it is.

Or, since I have actually read the posts above, perhaps you've just become a bit of a drama queen.

But what does that have to do with Connie Sonne failing spectacularly in her preliminary test?

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
But what does that have to do with Connie Sonne failing spectacularly in her preliminary test?

The thread title is "CONNIE SONNE, Dowser". Many of the posts in this thread seem to me - at best - tangents of tangents to the OP.

I expressed my chagrin that this seems a recurring theme in many threads of this subforum. This was meant as a bit of a challenge to people to actually say something.

It could also be that I found nothing of interest to me in these posts. Perhaps other forumites view this differently and this thread helped them in some way.