CONNIE SONNE, Dowser

[dann]

But you're doing it now!
written by BillyJoe, June 28, 2009

I am questioning why people are worried this woman will be treated poorly? She is putting her claim out there, and when it fails, I don't believe anyone is going to throw food at her or scream, "(place obscenity of choice her)". This isn't a middle school playground. I feel sure she has been treated well and will continue to be treated well when her claims have been debunked. Bravery is not the issue here if she is confident in her claim.

That is poor treatment of somone about to undergo a test of her claimed abilities.
...and you don't even realise you're doing it.

BJ

You are correcting a guy who knows about the real world and its rules, and you want him to pretend that he doesn't! (in the name of (poor) science, I guess)
It corresponds to blaming somebody 'predicting' the lunar cycle for poor treatment of the moon!

 

[fls]

And I suppose my point is that "looking at the circumstances" does not allow you to make absolute statements, because you may not be assessing these circumstances completely accurately.

Then argue it on that point instead.

...for the time being.
Who knows whether further observations will eventually show us that we do, in fact, have a need of this entity.

So what? Further observations could eventually show us that we need aether and the cross-eyed dirt remover.

You are saying that Connie claims of paranormal ability could be entirely explained by visual cuing etc. First of all, how can you be absolutely sure that this is the case. Her failure in ther test, suggests this was the case, but we can't know that absolutely. There may be other reasons for failing the test. She may have ability over and above any visual cuing that may have occurred in the conditions under which she determied that she had the ability. Remember, I'm merely trying to rule out being absolutely certain here.

You are still approaching this with the perspective that someone comes up with an idea and then it is up to us to prove it wrong or find some other explanation. This is not a scientific approach, however, and I don't think you should fault others if they don't choose it.

Science asks instead what gave you the idea in the first place? What gave Connie the idea that she has paranormal abilities? We already know that it does not require paranormal abilities in order to the form the idea that paranormal abilities are present. When we discover that Connie formed her ideas under those same circumstances, how could her idea serve to make paranormal abilities necessary? Ideas formed under informal, uncontrolled conditions which are contradicted under formal, controlled conditions are exactly what we expect to see in the absence of paranormal abilities.

In order to worry about the conditions under which failure may occur, one first has to find a way to independently identify when paranormal abilities are present.

Secondly, the test cannot have ruled out any of her other claimed abilities.

What rules in her other claimed abilities?

Linda

 

[BillyJoe]

Because "Is there no reincarnation?" is not even a legitimate scientific question but only magical, wishful thinking.

If "Is there no reincarnation?" is not even a legitimate scientific question, then how can you you provide a legitimate scientific answer, let alone say that the answer is "there is no reincarnation".

Seriously testing the question in science (by R. Wisemann, for instance?) is not a result of a scientific need to know but, possibly, of the educational interest in 'curing' the incredibly many people who believe in (this particular kind of) nonsense - as if a mistaken concept of science is what makes them believe.

Fair enough.
But we might question whether absolute statements, or even hyperbole, serves that purpose.

 

[BillyJoe]

You are correcting a guy who knows about the real world and its rules, and you want him to pretend that he doesn't! (in the name of (poor) science, I guess)

What I was saying here was that he was wrong to treat CS in the way he did whilst the JREF were in the process of testing her. The representatives of the JREF treated her with respect and set out to help her in every way possible to pass the test under controlled conditions. She failed under these very favourable circumstances. That has to be a plus for the JREF. There was no need and, in fact, it would have been counterproductive to denigrate and dismiss her in the circumstances where she agreed to be tested and was in the process of being tested.

 

[dann]

I don't see anything disrespectful in stating the obvious:
Connie Sonne's claim would fail and be debunked. And it was.

 

[dann]

If "Is there no reincarnation?" is not even a legitimate scientific question, then how can you you provide a legitimate scientific answer, let alone say that the answer is "there is no reincarnation".

There is no scientific reason to believe that there might be any such thing as reincarnation. For the same reason "Aren't there any pink unicorns?" may be a question, but it is not a scientific one.

 

[weirdl]

Make the applicant pay their own expenses (by borrowing) and sell tickets. The MDC is profitable at last. Good thinking.

 

[fls]

What I was saying here was that he was wrong to treat CS in the way he did whilst the JREF were in the process of testing her. The representatives of the JREF treated her with respect and set out to help her in every way possible to pass the test under controlled conditions. She failed under these very favourable circumstances. That has to be a plus for the JREF. There was no need and, in fact, it would have been counterproductive to denigrate and dismiss her in the circumstances where she agreed to be tested and was in the process of being tested.

Yeah, even though the probability of my mammogram showing cancer is so low as to consider it foolish to even perform the test,* I still expect the radiology staff to treat me respectfully before (and after) the test is done.

Linda

*Even more so as it isn't an evidence-based recommendation in my age group.

 

[fls]

Maybe statements like "there is no X" serve to indicate that the idea has not yet passed out of the realm of non-sense?

Linda

 

[rjh01]

Yeah, even though the probability of my mammogram showing cancer is so low as to consider it foolish to even perform the test,* I still expect the radiology staff to treat me respectfully before (and after) the test is done.
<snip>.

I would however, expect them to tell you that the chances of finding cancer are very low and suggest that the test is not worth the risk and expense and the reasons why they have this opinion. Otherwise they cannot be sure you are giving informed consent.

Ditto for CS. She needed to be told beforehand the chances of her succeeding and why. Otherwise JREF could be accused of exploiting her for entertainment reasons.

 

[pakeha]

Connie Sonne, failed claimant

Nothing else can be accessed on the internet right now, but the snippet is from a fairly long interview in which most of her ideas are mentioned – but not the JREF test. You have to consider that July is agurketid in Denmark (= ’cucumber time’, i.e. when newspaper journalists are left with stories about the peasant growing the largest cucumber, = the silly season). The snippet is from the introduction, which I consider a decent way of indicating that what follows should be taken with a grain of salt.

Online you’ll find (cached) these letters from Connie Sonne to Bornholms Tidende:

Ytringsfrihed eller hvad? Thursday, October 2, 2008. (Freedom of Speech or What?)

Plantesamlere i det skjulte! Wednesday, November 5, 2008. (Clandestine Plant Collectors!)

I think that you’ll get the gist of them if you run them through a Google translation.

I would like to point out again that Connie Sonne does not appear to be making any money telling her stories, nor does she have a following of worshippers who consider her a guru.
She appears to be all alone in the world with nobody else sharing her particular delusions, and the damage that she does with her stories about Madeleine is probably not intended.
I never saw the point of her test at TAM.

Thanks so very much for those links, dann.
Sorry not to have gotten back to this thread earlier to thank you; I was abducted, or seduced, rather by a fascinating, absolutely fascinating (to me) thread and have only just now read your reply.
I'll go along to the links. Again many thanks for your thoughtful reply.

 

[pakeha]

Connie Sonne, failed claimant

Back from the links.
That was educational and rather pathetic, actually.
And yes, dann, I understand what you say about any damage the lady may have caused in that missing child case.
Thank you again for those links.
If you have a link to the interview, I'd be interested in reading it.

 

[dann]

I've PM'ed it to you, Pakeha.

 

[BillyJoe]

You are still approaching this with the perspective that someone comes up with an idea and then it is up to us to prove it wrong or find some other explanation.

Where have I suggested that? In fact, I am on record as saying that, if the plausibility is zero, we shouldn't be wasting time and effort addressing the idea at all - unless actual harm can come from these ideas and unless putting the scientific perspective could mitigate these harms.
This is quite different from saying "there is no X".

This is not a scientific approach, however, and I don't think you should fault others if they don't choose it.

I would support them in fact.

Science asks instead what gave you the idea in the first place? What gave Connie the idea that she has paranormal abilities? We already know that it does not require paranormal abilities in order to the form the idea that paranormal abilities are present. When we discover that Connie formed her ideas under those same circumstances, how could her idea serve to make paranormal abilities necessary? Ideas formed under informal, uncontrolled conditions which are contradicted under formal, controlled conditions are exactly what we expect to see in the absence of paranormal abilities.

I think this is your core argument as to why you can say "Connie has no paranormal abilities". What you say above all sounds pretty reasonable to me, but I think it's the reason that "Connie has no paranormal abilities" is the null hypothesis. And, when Connie doesn't demonstrate otherwise in a specific test of her claimed abilities, we say that the null hypothesis has not been disproven. The null hypothesis is never actually proven, it can only fail to be disproven. There is always the possibility that the null hypothesis may prove to be wrong in the long run

What rules in her other claimed abilities?

I didn't say they were ruled in. I'm saying that they weren't even tested.

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[dann]

Would you find it worthwhile testing them??!

 

[fls]

Where have I suggested that? In fact, I am on record as saying that, if the plausibility is zero, we shouldn't be wasting time and effort addressing the idea at all - unless actual harm can come from these ideas and unless putting the scientific perspective could mitigate these harms.
This is quite different from saying "there is no X".

If a thing exists, but no evidence has yet been presented to our notice about this thing (quantum fluctuations a few hundred years ago, for example), then how do we know about this thing? We have no reason to consider it as existing. Think about the 200+ traditional Chinese medicines which may have been used for the treatment of malaria. When subject to a scientific evaluation, one of them was effective against malaria and the rest were not. Yet that one was not distinguished from the others, and could have easily escaped inclusion. The tool of informal, uncontrolled observation is useless for letting us know whether something exists, from both directions. Not only does it fail to recognize the non-existence of the thing, but it fails to discover existence when it is present. It discovers things that don't exist and it fails to discover things that do exist.

Our certainty doesn't stem from the specifics of one particular test, rather our certainty stems from the history of science whereby we have discovered the conditions under which we are going to be wrong. What this challenge showed us is that Connie's claims were formed under those conditions.

By saying that that isn't good enough, that we need to prove each of her claims to be wrong under all conditions in order to say that the thing doesn't exist, is to suggest that we change our approach. Rather than forming ideas on the basis of careful observation and evidence, we form ideas in their absence and then use careful observation and evidence to exclude those which are false.

I think this is your core argument as to why you can say "Connie has no paranormal abilities". What you say above all sounds pretty reasonable to me, but I think it's the reason that "Connie has no paranormal abilities" is the null hypothesis. And, when Connie doesn't demonstrate otherwise in a specific test of her claimed abilities, we say that the null hypothesis has not been disproven. The null hypothesis is never actually proven, it can only fail to be disproven. There is always the possibility that the null hypothesis may prove to be wrong in the long run

Where do you get the idea that this hypothesis cannot be proven? Any hypothesis can be designated the null or the non-null.

But in this case, I think the null hypothesis is really "Connie's claims are based on the usual methods that lead to false claims".

I didn't say they were ruled in. I'm saying that they weren't even tested.

regards,
BillyJoe

Do you think that she came by those claims through careful, controlled testing, then?

Linda

 

[dann]

If a thing exists, but no evidence has yet been presented to our notice about this thing (quantum fluctuations a few hundred years ago, for example), then how do we know about this thing?

We cannot know for sure about anything, can we? Maybe the quantum fluctuations only exist every time we test for them ... and maybe the tests are all wrong and ought to be tested ... which, of course, would require that the tests of the tests be tested, just to make sure, but we can never be sure, can we?
Every day some professor of philosophy who makes his daily bread denying the possibility of obtaining objective knowledge gets aboard a plane without a worry in the world that the laws of aerodynamics are going to be falsified on this particular flight.

Yes, there is such a thing as objective knowledge.
And, yes, there is such a thing as mistakes and errors in science. Popper's stupid falsificationism is one of them - if anybody still considers him a scientist.

The contradiction in considering mistakes in science and the possibility of being wrong an argument against the possibility of objective knowledge is that it requires that you know with absolute certainty that a mistake has been made - and the knowledge of the error would then have to be accepted as objective knowledge. Some philosophers appear to be absolutely convinced that we cannot be absolutely convinced about anything. (And how will we ever know for sure that Connie Sonne's test wasn't some fiendish scheme thought out by Banachek, who is a professional magician and thus able to fool us all?)

 

[fls]

We cannot know for sure about anything, can we?

We behave as though we do. After all, we walk around as though we're sure about gravity.

Linda

 

[dann]

Yes, the vanity of mankind!
I'm sure that one of these days we'll be severely punished for our zealous belief in the false idol of gravity!

 

[bryan]

Banachek interview tonight

Hello.....

If anyone is interested, we will have Banachek on for an interview tonight.

We are looking forward to hearing about the MDC experience from him.

Thanks,
Bryan
warningradio . info