Comments on: Connie’s Conundrums http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/07/13/connies-conundrums/ The official blog of the Skeptologists Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:38:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Susan Gerbic http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/07/13/connies-conundrums/#comment-10211 Susan Gerbic Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:52:01 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3379#comment-10211 Thank you Derek for that link. Finally watched the video at breakfast this morning over a bowl of Lucky Charms. Seems the mediums didn't have their Lucky Charms that morning. Great exposure, we need far more of that. Thank you Derek for that link. Finally watched the video at breakfast this morning over a bowl of Lucky Charms. Seems the mediums didn’t have their Lucky Charms that morning. Great exposure, we need far more of that.

]]> By: Susan Gerbic http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/07/13/connies-conundrums/#comment-10000 Susan Gerbic Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:54:55 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3379#comment-10000 Oh I just got it......tmac57 "quoted" Devil's Advocate after he said he wanted to be quoted! HAAAAAA Bear with me folks, sometimes humor is better served cold. Susan Oh I just got it……tmac57
“quoted” Devil’s Advocate after he said he wanted to be quoted!

HAAAAAA

Bear with me folks, sometimes humor is better served cold.

Susan

]]> By: Derek http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/07/13/connies-conundrums/#comment-9977 Derek Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:54:58 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3379#comment-9977 There's a fantastic debunking of three mediums recently on the BBC (linked via boing boing) http://www.boingboing.net/2009/07/17/bbc-exposes-three-ps.html There’s a fantastic debunking of three mediums recently on the BBC (linked via boing boing)

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/07/17/bbc-exposes-three-ps.html

]]> By: Devil's Advocate http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/07/13/connies-conundrums/#comment-9950 Devil's Advocate Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:50:04 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3379#comment-9950 tmac57 is a chucklehead. You can quote me on that. tmac57 is a chucklehead. You can quote me on that.

]]> By: tmac57 http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/07/13/connies-conundrums/#comment-9938 tmac57 Sat, 18 Jul 2009 00:22:08 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3379#comment-9938 Devil's Advocate says: "And bullshit claims survive on bullshit evidence. You can quote me on that." Devil’s Advocate says: “And bullshit claims survive on bullshit evidence. You can quote me on that.”

]]> By: Devil's Advocate http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/07/13/connies-conundrums/#comment-9928 Devil's Advocate Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:34:55 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3379#comment-9928 And bullshit claims survive on bullshit evidence. You can quote me on that. And bullshit claims survive on bullshit evidence. You can quote me on that.

]]> By: tmac57 http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/07/13/connies-conundrums/#comment-9910 tmac57 Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:12:05 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3379#comment-9910 Alex-"I like to say, there isn’t such a thing as “Magic”, but there is such a thing as undiscovered science. So writing off something as bogus simply because it hasn’t been proven right yet is unscientific and unproductive for humanity in general." What you seem to be missing here is the idea of prior plausibility. Most scientific 'discoveries' do not occur in a vacuum of prior accumulated knowledge which in a kind of stepping stone fashion leads to a building of comprehensive theory. Psychics have not put forth any testable theory of mechanism of HOW their 'powers' work, much less that they DO work. Therefore, in the absence of a plausible mechanism for 'psychic' powers, skeptics are rightfully anticipating yet another failure. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Alex-”I like to say, there isn’t such a thing as “Magic”, but there is such a thing as undiscovered science. So writing off something as bogus simply because it hasn’t been proven right yet is unscientific and unproductive for humanity in general.”
What you seem to be missing here is the idea of prior plausibility. Most scientific ‘discoveries’ do not occur in a vacuum of prior accumulated knowledge which in a kind of stepping stone fashion leads to a building of comprehensive theory. Psychics have not put forth any testable theory of mechanism of HOW their ‘powers’ work, much less that they DO work. Therefore, in the absence of a plausible mechanism for ‘psychic’ powers, skeptics are rightfully anticipating yet another failure. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

]]> By: Devil's Advocate http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/07/13/connies-conundrums/#comment-9908 Devil's Advocate Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:41:04 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3379#comment-9908 Just so, Susan, plus Alex toys with strawman argumentation when he accuses skeptics of considering all psychics bogus on the basis of one test of one psychic. For over a century now of the era of modern science psychics and other paranormal claimants have stepped up, been tested, and failed again and again and again, without a white crow in sight. Among UFO believers, there is the practice of the ever-changing set of "best evidence", wherein UFO advocates present their best evidenced cases, cahallenging science to debunk them. When they do debunk one, the UFO advocates merely replace it with another and renew the challenge: "Well, OK, but what about THIS case, Mr. Skeptic?" Alex risks falling into this trap of belief where a quasi 'openmindedness' that thinly masks belief is supported not by any positive evidence of existence, but by the scientific community's having not debunked every single case made by every single claimant. Well, that's not possible and in no way supports a given paranormal claim. The burden of proof, of course, rests with the claimant. Just so, Susan, plus Alex toys with strawman argumentation when he accuses skeptics of considering all psychics bogus on the basis of one test of one psychic.

For over a century now of the era of modern science psychics and other paranormal claimants have stepped up, been tested, and failed again and again and again, without a white crow in sight.

Among UFO believers, there is the practice of the ever-changing set of “best evidence”, wherein UFO advocates present their best evidenced cases, cahallenging science to debunk them. When they do debunk one, the UFO advocates merely replace it with another and renew the challenge: “Well, OK, but what about THIS case, Mr. Skeptic?”

Alex risks falling into this trap of belief where a quasi ‘openmindedness’ that thinly masks belief is supported not by any positive evidence of existence, but by the scientific community’s having not debunked every single case made by every single claimant. Well, that’s not possible and in no way supports a given paranormal claim. The burden of proof, of course, rests with the claimant.

]]> By: Susan Gerbic http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/07/13/connies-conundrums/#comment-9902 Susan Gerbic Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:42:42 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3379#comment-9902 I can't agree. Not at all. Yes the scientific community should keep the door open to the possibility of paranormal activity. But there is so much more amazing science yet to be done out there that wasting time on claims like these just because they say so isn't a productive use of time. I think examining these claims is a interesting endeavor into how people fool themselves and each other. As a psychological experiment I think this is entirely worthwhile. This is why I'm a part of the skeptic community, and not the science community. Connie agreed to this test, she was allowed to "tune in" right before the test. She believed enough that she put out the money to go be tested. Good for her! The scientific community is not responsible for testing every claim of psychic power that is proposed. Connie did not test herself before TAM7 and would have saved a lot of money setting up these strict controls in Denmark. Once (or if) something is found that could point to paranormal activity then science will be able to test it. Remember science is a action word. It is a method. So far all we have are a bunch of stories and not very good ones at all. Except for those rainy dark nights around the fire.... I don't think the skeptic community had a "we knew you couldn't do it" attitude. In that dead quiet room, many of us were hoping she would get them all right. We want to believe. Just Connie and the rest of the psychics haven't show us anything to get excited about yet. Susan I can’t agree. Not at all. Yes the scientific community should keep the door open to the possibility of paranormal activity. But there is so much more amazing science yet to be done out there that wasting time on claims like these just because they say so isn’t a productive use of time.

I think examining these claims is a interesting endeavor into how people fool themselves and each other. As a psychological experiment I think this is entirely worthwhile. This is why I’m a part of the skeptic community, and not the science community.

Connie agreed to this test, she was allowed to “tune in” right before the test. She believed enough that she put out the money to go be tested. Good for her! The scientific community is not responsible for testing every claim of psychic power that is proposed. Connie did not test herself before TAM7 and would have saved a lot of money setting up these strict controls in Denmark.

Once (or if) something is found that could point to paranormal activity then science will be able to test it. Remember science is a action word. It is a method. So far all we have are a bunch of stories and not very good ones at all. Except for those rainy dark nights around the fire….

I don’t think the skeptic community had a “we knew you couldn’t do it” attitude. In that dead quiet room, many of us were hoping she would get them all right. We want to believe. Just Connie and the rest of the psychics haven’t show us anything to get excited about yet.

Susan

]]> By: Alex http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/07/13/connies-conundrums/#comment-9899 Alex Fri, 17 Jul 2009 03:55:57 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3379#comment-9899 I'm not trying to say that we need to start listening to everyone who says they saw aliens, but I think the skeptic community, at least as far as this article displays of it, needs to reconsider its attitude to such "tests". A true scientist should be aware of how little s/he knows about existence and its bounds. This test does not prove anything except that this person could not guess the cards using her technique in that environment. Like all other scientific tests, for something to be debunked, we can't have one example of it being wrong and say that it's wrong period. Actually it is laughable that a group of die-hard science followers are responding to this scenario with a sort of "ha you're wrong I knew it!" attitude. This proves so little. Again, I'm not saying she's right; in fact, I'd say that yes, most "psychics" are just preying off the naivety of the general populace, but that being said, if people want to look at this from a real scientific view, then people shouldn't be dismissing connie sonne so soon, let alone the whole psychic practice. I like to say, there isn't such a thing as "Magic", but there is such a thing as undiscovered science. So writing off something as bogus simply because it hasn't been proven right yet is unscientific and unproductive for humanity in general. (Of course if something is proven wrong then that's that. I'm looking at you big foot.) I’m not trying to say that we need to start listening to everyone who says they saw aliens, but I think the skeptic community, at least as far as this article displays of it, needs to reconsider its attitude to such “tests”. A true scientist should be aware of how little s/he knows about existence and its bounds. This test does not prove anything except that this person could not guess the cards using her technique in that environment. Like all other scientific tests, for something to be debunked, we can’t have one example of it being wrong and say that it’s wrong period. Actually it is laughable that a group of die-hard science followers are responding to this scenario with a sort of “ha you’re wrong I knew it!” attitude. This proves so little. Again, I’m not saying she’s right; in fact, I’d say that yes, most “psychics” are just preying off the naivety of the general populace, but that being said, if people want to look at this from a real scientific view, then people shouldn’t be dismissing connie sonne so soon, let alone the whole psychic practice.

I like to say, there isn’t such a thing as “Magic”, but there is such a thing as undiscovered science. So writing off something as bogus simply because it hasn’t been proven right yet is unscientific and unproductive for humanity in general. (Of course if something is proven wrong then that’s that. I’m looking at you big foot.)

]]>