CONNIE SONNE, Dowser

[fls]

That has been my point all along.
We never know what discoveries await us, so let's not be so dogmatic about what we think we know.

But these statements can only be considered dogmatic if they are applied to things that are not being referenced by those statements. The 'dogmatism' you speak of is your own creation. You created it by insisting on intentions that no one else holds when they are speaking rationally.

You keep arguing that we shouldn't do something that none of us is actually doing. It is not rational to make knowledge statements about unknown, made-up events.

Linda

 

[dann]

I was suggesting that you were effectively doing this by claiming that quantum fluctuations are not "things".

I'm not the only one, apparently, since they are defined as, "a quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space", which you, in order to uphold your false analogy, insist on defining as "things", which you appear to think of as anything that isn't supernatural, which enables you to draw the nonsensical conclusion that anyone who does not accept your postulate must believe in ghosts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

That has been my point all along.
We never know what discoveries await us, so let's not be so dogmatic about what we think we know.

Well, we do (and did) know that Connie Sonne has (and had and forever will have) no paranormal powers. And there's nothing dogmatic about that knowledge. But feel free to replace knowledge with your own humility.

And I think you have yet to support your contention that they are not.

See quotation above. That you insist on your false abstraction "things", which your whole argument is based on, doesn't change reality - in everyday life or in quantum mechanics.

You can't have it both ways

You are the one who draws woo conclusions on my behalf, so apparently you can have it any way you like it.

 

[BillyJoe]

dann,

If it is not some thing, it is no thing.
Are you really saying that about quantum fluctuations?


BJ

 

[dann]

No, I don't draw your conclusions. You do.
(You do know the difference between "some thing" and something, don't you?)

 

[BillyJoe]

But these statements can only be considered dogmatic if they are applied to things that are not being referenced by those statements. The 'dogmatism' you speak of is your own creation. You created it by insisting on intentions that no one else holds when they are speaking rationally.

You keep arguing that we shouldn't do something that none of us is actually doing. It is not rational to make knowledge statements about unknown, made-up events.

I do understand and appreciate your argument, but I think it doesn't quite work.

Leaning onon historical precedents, I'm allowing for remote possibilities to be proven true in the future. If your argument is to be successful against my argument, it has to defeat it absolutely. I don't see that it does that.

Before quantum fluctuations, you would presumably have said that "things cannot appear out of nowhere, and disappear without trace". You may have been thinking of everyday objects when you said this but, if I had asked: well maybe not a large boulder, but what about a small piece of sandstone? No, not a piece of sandstone either, you would have replied. A single grain of sand then? No, not even a single grain of sand. An atom? No.
You see where this is heading. Your opinion would nave been: Nothing, no matter how small can just appear out of nowhere.
Yet, we now have the counterexample of the quantum fluctuation.

But, in my other example, it seems that the aether carries too much baggage. It did once refer to the absolute reference frame, but apparently it means many different things to many different people. In any case, let's drop the term. The idea of an absolute reference frame has been disproven. Light travels at the same speed in all reference frames. M-M proved that. The idea of an absolute reference frame is dead.

BillyJoe

 

[BillyJoe]

No, I don't draw your conclusions. You do.
(You do know the difference between "some thing" and something, don't you?)

What? Do you want to fail English as well

 

[fls]

No, I don't draw your conclusions. You do.
(You do know the difference between "some thing" and something, don't you?)

I don't.


Linda

 

[fls]

I do understand and appreciate your argument, but I think it doesn't quite work.

Leaning onon historical precedents, I'm allowing for remote possibilities to be proven true in the future. If your argument is to be successful against my argument, it has to defeat it absolutely.

Why? Why can't it be about addressing the information at hand, rather than addressing information that has never been available to us?

I don't see that it does that.

Before quantum fluctuations, you would presumably have said that "things cannot appear out of nowhere, and disappear without trace". You may have been thinking of everyday objects when you said this but, if I had asked: well maybe not a large boulder, but what about a small piece of sandstone? No, not a piece of sandstone either, you would have replied. A single grain of sand then? No, not even a single grain of sand. An atom?

What's an atom? What observations would I have made that would have represented the visualization of an atom? What would it have taken for me to say, "I saw an atom, but it suddenly disappeared"?

No.
You see where this is heading. Your opinion would nave been: Nothing, no matter how small can just appear out of nowhere.
Yet, we now have the counterexample of the quantum fluctuation.

Again, you are assuming that if future discoveries led to something which we would call paranormal powers, that what Connie experienced under uncontrolled conditions were observations of that something. But this is like saying that those people who experienced resolution of their ear infection when given a placebo were actually experiencing the effects of amoxicillin.

But, in my other example, it seems that the aether carries too much baggage. It did once refer to the absolute reference frame, but apparently it means many different things to many different people. In any case, let's drop the term. The idea of an absolute reference frame has been disproven. Light travels at the same speed in all reference frames. M-M proved that. The idea of an absolute reference frame is dead.

BillyJoe

See, here you are acting rationally. You are addressing a conclusion based on the information at hand, rather than information which has never been available to us. Why can you not give the same consideration to other topics?

Linda

 

[dann]

What? Do you want to fail English as well

OK, so you need a lesson in English, too:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_some_thing_and_something

 

[BillyJoe]

OK, so you need a lesson in English, too:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_some_thing_and_something

Okay, so first you failed Physics, then English, and now it's Comprehension...

When speaking, your tone of voice changes. Some THING to give to you sounds much more provocative and colloqial.
Otherwise, there is no big difference.

Apart from which, wiki is sometimes an incomplete or error prone source.
Hell, some articles are written by people just like you!

 

[BillyJoe]

Why? Why can't it be about addressing the information at hand, rather than addressing information that has never been available to us?

So then, why wouldn't you say "based on ther information available to us at the present time..."

Again, you are assuming that if future discoveries led to something which we would call paranormal powers, that what Connie experienced under uncontrolled conditions were observations of that something.

I don't follow.

Everyday objects such as sandstones and sand grains do not just appear out of nowhere and so you make the generalisation that "things do not just appear out of nowhere". If pushed, you would extend this generalisation to the smallest thing in existence (whatever that may be) - you just can't get some thing out of no thing. But you would have been wrong. You would not have been wrong if you had said "the evidence at the present time is that...".

But I don't see how this patterns onto Connie's claims of paranormal powers and the possible future discovery of paranormal powers.

But this is like saying that those people who experienced resolution of their ear infection when given a placebo were actually experiencing the effects of amoxicillin.

Sorry, I understand this even less.

See, here you are acting rationally. You are addressing a conclusion based on the information at hand, rather than information which has never been available to us. Why can you not give the same consideration to other topics?

But, the information at hand in this instance is conclusive. There cannot be an absolute reference frame if it's non-existence has been demonstrated even just once (ie in the M-M experiment at the time and place the experiment took place)

BJ

 

[dann]

That's right, BJ, always leave out the part that's actually relevant:

Something: Any random object, unpredicted,
for example: "I have something special for you!"

Some thing: The thing is already DEFINED. the thing is only ONE thing, not anything else.
for example: "Tom has some thing to give to you,"

Your focus on the tone of voice was an excellent idea.

 

[BillyJoe]

That first bit was taken as read.
What you failed to read or comprehend, and what was the purpose of my post, was the second part that I quoted.

Your focus on the tone of voice was an excellent idea.

Well, guess what, dann? This is a forum where we type messages and read them. We do not actually talk to each other, so I would say "tone of voice" is not relevant here. It was the "tone of voice" that was supposed to make the difference here, and without which, "there is no big difference".



BJ

 

[fls]

So then, why wouldn't you say "based on ther information available to us at the present time..."

Because it's redundant. It's always based on the information available to us, rather than information that is unknown. Connie didn't form her claims based on observations that take place 100 years in the future.

I don't follow.

You are assuming that the experiences Connie describes, experiences which we already know occur as a consequence of chance and bias, can be taken to be examples of something else, if we later discover the existence of that something else. But let's pretend for a moment that we already know of that something else. I used the example of a clinical trial of amoxicillin whereby we discover that amoxicillin treats ear infections. What you are assuming is that in a clinical trial of amoxicillin, everyone who recovered did so because of the effect of amoxicillin. Except that we know that some people who recovered took a sugar pill instead of amoxicillin. You would be wrong to assume that any example of recovery was an example of the effect of amoxicillin, yet you seem to have no compunction about assuming that any example of a paranormal claim is an example of some yet-to-be-discovered thing for which we have no inkling.

If aspirin performs no differently than placebo when it comes to the treatment of ear infections, does it mean that those people who took aspirin and recovered did not do so because of the placebo effect, when it is later discovered that aspirin effectively treats arthritis?

Everyday objects such as sandstones and sand grains do not just appear out of nowhere and so you make the generalisation that "things do not just appear out of nowhere". If pushed, you would extend this generalisation to the smallest thing in existence (whatever that may be) - you just can't get some thing out of no thing. But you would have been wrong. You would not have been wrong if you had said "the evidence at the present time is that...".

Why would I even say that? Under what circumstances would I say, "the evidence in the future is that...."?

But I don't see how this patterns onto Connie's claims of paranormal powers and the possible future discovery of paranormal powers.

Sorry, I understand this even less.

I know, but this gets to the crux of what I'm trying to say. If we discover something that can reasonably to taken to be paranormal abilities, and we look for the pattern of how it shows up on a macro level, that pattern won't be "people who have little understanding of chance, and of cognitive and other biases, who claim unusual knowledge under uncontrolled conditions but fail to demonstrate anything under controlled conditions". Rather, it will be some other pattern, like "people who experience vertigo when in proximity to a structure with two reflective surfaces".

But, the information at hand in this instance is conclusive. There cannot be an absolute reference frame if it's non-existence has been demonstrated even just once (ie in the M-M experiment at the time and place the experiment took place)

BJ

It simply means that an absolute reference frame is not necessary to explain the information available to us at the present time. We don't know if future observations will make an absolute reference frame necessary.

Linda

 

[dann]

That first bit was taken as read.
What you failed to read or comprehend, and what was the purpose of my post, was the second part that I quoted.




Well, guess what, dann? This is a forum where we type messages and read them. We do not actually talk to each other, so I would say "tone of voice" is not relevant here. It was the "tone of voice" that was supposed to make the difference here, and without which, "there is no big difference".



BJ

So instead of even registering the actual difference between "some thing" and "something":

Something: Any random object, unpredicted,
for example: "I have something special for you!"

Some thing: The thing is already DEFINED. the thing is only ONE thing, not anything else.
for example: "Tom has some thing to give to you,"
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_some_thing_and_something

you choose to focus on "tone of voice", the one thing that is completely irrelevant in "a forum where we type messages and read them" and "do not actually talk to each other"!
Way to go, BJ!

 

[Moochie]

Something along the lines of this, I guess.



Feel free to invoke the gods of your choice.
The rules of quantum mechanics are very different from the rules of the universe 'as we know it' where things don't come out of nowhere and disappear without a trace. Thus whatever 'predictions' people may have made about the Newtonian universe cannot be expected to hold true on the quantum level.
You are the one who insists on referring to the phenomenon of quantum fluctuations as things - an abstraction you want to uphold in order to maintain your false analogy.
The inhabitants of the spirit world are also of your own invention. They don't appear in anything I've said.

I think a degree of caution is prudent when casually uttering phrases such as quantum fluctuations/things coming out of nowhere/disappearing without a trace, as lazy/immature minds will grab them for padding their own ill-informed "theories of everything."

As regards this interesting if a tad dry discussion, I consider my understanding of things to be working hypotheses. Regarding CS and those like her, my understanding of their claims is that they (the claims) are hogwash.


M.

 

[BillyJoe]

Because it's redundant. It's always based on the information available to us, rather than information that is unknown. Connie didn't form her claims based on observations that take place 100 years in the future.

Serves me right for trying to be too precise I guess.
My emphasis was on the "based on the evidence..." or "the evidence suggests that...". I was suggesting that was a better conclusion than "there is no..."

You are assuming that the experiences Connie describes, experiences which we already know occur as a consequence of chance and bias, can be taken to be examples of something else, if we later discover the existence of that something else. But let's pretend for a moment that we already know of that something else. I used the example of a clinical trial of amoxicillin whereby we discover that amoxicillin treats ear infections. What you are assuming is that in a clinical trial of amoxicillin, everyone who recovered did so because of the effect of amoxicillin. Except that we know that some people who recovered took a sugar pill instead of amoxicillin. You would be wrong to assume that any example of recovery was an example of the effect of amoxicillin, yet you seem to have no compunction about assuming that any example of a paranormal claim is an example of some yet-to-be-discovered thing for which we have no inkling.

I see.
But I haven't rolled Connie's claimed abilities and the possible existence of pararnormal powers together as tightly as that. If Connie has paranormal powers then, certainly, paranormal powers exist. But the converse is not true. If paranormal powers are shown to exist at some time in the future, that does not mean that Connie had these powers.

Why would I even say that? Under what circumstances would I say, "the evidence in the future is that...."?

Again, it serves me right for trying to be too precise.
The emphasis was meant to be on the "evidence" not "at the present time". I would say "there is no evidence that there is X" rather than "there is no X". The first accepts the possibility that evidence might be found in the future. The latter excludes that possibility.

I know, but this gets to the crux of what I'm trying to say. If we discover something that can reasonably to taken to be paranormal abilities, and we look for the pattern of how it shows up on a macro level, that pattern won't be "people who have little understanding of chance, and of cognitive and other biases, who claim unusual knowledge under uncontrolled conditions but fail to demonstrate anything under controlled conditions". Rather, it will be some other pattern, like "people who experience vertigo when in proximity to a structure with two reflective surfaces".

Okay, I get that, and I agree.
Except of course for the bolded word. You cannot conclusively say that that will be true in all cases.

It simply means that an absolute reference frame is not necessary to explain the information available to us at the present time. We don't know if future observations will make an absolute reference frame necessary.

Yes we do, because it is incompatible with the fact that c was found by M-M to the identical in two different reference frames.

BJ

 

[BillyJoe]

I think a degree of caution is prudent when casually uttering phrases such as quantum fluctuations/things coming out of nowhere/disappearing without a trace, as lazy/immature minds will grab them for padding their own ill-informed "theories of everything."

As if we can be held responsible for that.
Suppress the truth, it may be misused!

As regards this interesting if a tad dry discussion, I consider my understanding of things to be working hypotheses. Regarding CS and those like her, my understanding of their claims is that they (the claims) are hogwash.

So, your understanding that the claims of those like Connie are hogwash is a working hypothesis?

BJ

 

[BillyJoe]

dann,

If I gave you a shovel, do you think you could dig yourself a hole?
Or would you need a spade?



billyjoe

 

[dann]

Well, at least you seem to recognize the existence of both shovels, spades and holes - or maybe you just pretend to do so in the humble expectation that they may be falsified in the near or far future.