BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: mack/misophist
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 11:21 AM

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is one of the more persistant falacies.

LH: For centuries it was believed that rotting meat spontaneously generated worms and flies. It took about a thousand years for some one to think of putting meat in a pan with cheese-cloth over the top to test the idea. No worms or flies. Surprise. This is called science and is responsible for most of the good things we have today. It's not religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 11:20 AM

A faith of any given sort IS a hypothesis, Wolfgang, and it most certainly can be open to refutation. I have had faith in any number of things in my life which was later revised or refuted by EXPERIENCE. I do not agree with your definition of the word "faith". I think you've got it confused with "religious doctrine". Religious doctrine is a specific kind of very narrow faith, and even IT can be refuted or revised in the light of experience....if the person with that faith is moderately flexible in nature.

I am flexible in nature.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 11:14 AM

Call me a skeptic, but....

I do believe that there are things I can't explain, but watching a cloud dissolve isn't among them. I can sit in my office right now and stare at the sky, at the clouds. And, doggone it, one DID just dissolve as I was typing the previous sentence! Of course, it is pretty windy out and the cloud actually merged into a great big gray one.

Also, because I cannot explain something doesn't automatically mean that there is something about it that is beyond the "normal." It only means I can't explain it.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 11:11 AM

I don't have a faith, Little Hawk, I have hypotheses and I know how to test them. That's something completely different and using the same words for different things doesn't make them the same. A real test of a hypothesis can have the result that a hypothesis was wrong. The other cloud might not have dissolved and I might have had to reconsider. A faith however isn't open to refutation.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 11:00 AM

You're quite correct, Wolfgang, that clouds dissolve anyway, on their own...although it's difficult to say exactly WHEN they will oblige and do that.

I learned the cloud dissolving thing years ago, and was quite intrigued with how it works (or appears to work). My general feeling about it is: I can hasten the dissolving of a given cloud by focusing that intention upon it, specially when I'm reasonably relaxed.

That's my impression. I may be wrong. I may be right.

You have a strong faith that things operate within certain parameters (natural laws), Wolfgang, and ONLY within those, and you will always search for evidence and interpretation of that evidence which supports your established faith. So do I have such a faith, BUT we just have faith in somewhat different areas, that's all.

You have an emtional need to prove your faith is right. That's not unusual. We all have that tendency, I think.

Best wishes,

George

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: robomatic
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 10:56 AM

Wolfgang:

I enjoyed your well written article. I had a similar experience taking a video course with a co-worker, where the video tape was to be stopped and we were to be tested at regular intervals. There was a logical inconsistency at one point which was pretty obvious, but try as I might I could not get it through the thick skull of my co-worker, who was a professional engineer of great experience.

I have learned not to take logic for granted.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 10:56 AM

Water witching and metal witching. Different types of instruments.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: gnu
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 10:43 AM

What type of dowsing?

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 10:24 AM

A beautiful dissertation, Wolfgang. Well reasoned and well worded.

A

Subject: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 09:52 AM

Sometimes I meet interesting people. This last one I met 10 days ago when he showed me how he dissolves clouds. I tell you this story to show how unknown scientific procedures are even among clever members of the general public.

He had called me months ago to tell me he can dissolve clouds. I asked him how he does it (by concentration and wishing them to dissolve) and why he called me (he wants me to witness it so that even a scientist is convinced; "I know it works but I want to prove it to scientists").

I then said I assumed he knew the most simple counter hypothesis. Oh yes, he said, but I also can do it if someone else watches and I can repeat it several times an hour. No, I said, that's not what was in my mind, I did trust his word for the effect, but had he ever watched a cloud and looked what happened to it when he did not want it to dissolve? No, he said, he could make clouds, only dissolve them. No, I said, that's not what I mean but clouds do happen to come and go and perhaps the clouds would go just as quickly without you (or anybody else) watching. As a control I advised him to point out a (for him) dissolvable cloud to his wife and to ask her to watch it while he was not concentrating.

He obviously didn't get it or did not understand the necessity of such a control for whenever he phoned me later he talked about his successes and not about this control even if I did ask him about it. We narrowed the scenario (little white clouds on a fine summer day) and his aim (to show it to a skeptic and perhaps to reclaim later Randi's million). I would do a pre-test whenever he declared the weather being o.k. and we both had time. He came over as a genuinely sincere man and as a quite clever man (he runs his own successful company) in many things related to daily business.

Wet met on two days of the weekend before last weekend when the weather was fine. When I asked him he had already forgotten about the control test I had suggested to him and repeated that not only himself and his wife but many trustworthy individuals had seen him doing it. I said I believed him completely regarding what happens but did not share his theory about it.

He then pointed out a cloud to me and stood there with his arms stretched out a bit so that the inside of his hands were directed towards the sky and visibly concentrated and accompanied his effort by a verbal description (there is already a tiny opening on the upper left side....on so on). After 8 minutes we agreed that the cloud had completely disappeared in the background haze. I told him that I had never watched any cloud for that long and so this was new to me as an experience but that I had believed this to be possible even before watching (there are sometimes films in TV with the clouds in the opposite of slow motion (whatever that is in English) and you see them come and go in seconds.

I then said, point me out another cloud you can dissolve. He did and then I said, now please turn your back to the cloud watch the scenery or do whatever you like but don't look at this cloud. I'm going to watch it. After 7 minutes the remains of that cloud were barely perceptible and I told him look at it that had dissolved completely without his interference. I then said that this of course was not a perfect test, we would need many repetitions and random assignment of dissolvable clouds to a group he concentrates upon or a group that is merely watched. And we would have the assessment ('now it is completely dissolved') made not by a skeptic knowing in which group that particular cloud was.

He then said he could show me how he dissolved some more clouds and I said that was not necessary for me for I already believed that small clouds would dissolve minutes after he set his mind on that endeavour. My only quibble I said was if what happened came merely after his attempt or because of his attempt. I once more said I believed his observation to be correct (that was his anxiety, BTW, that I might think he was deluded and that's why he mentioned the many witnesses) but I just did not believe his explanation (I make them disappear) to be correct as long as there was a very simple counter-explanation.

I could see that a bit of that how-do-I-test-a-hypothesis thinking did reach him but when he left he said he'd call me again on a better day and he'd show me how he can dissolve 6-10 clouds in one hour.

What amazes me is how such an intelligent and likeable man can be so oblivious of a simple test procedure for an idea. What amazes me even more (and that's by far not a single case) is that people when being told what the correct test procedure is and why still do not use it for themselves.

German skeptics recently have tested several dowsers (one of them had an amazing streak of successes and did make it to the first final with Randi, but when one potential source of an information leak was closed he fell back on chance performance). All of them have been filmed for TV (they knew it before) and since performing at chance level in TV can be a kind of embarrassment all of them have been told before exactly what the test procedure would be and have been asked to perform a blind test for themselves before going public. All have either said they had done it successfully or that they did not need a blind test because they knew what they could.

Well, it was a long story you may have liked to read or not, but the 'morals' should be clear: (1)It is a long way from an observation to an interpretation. (2) The 'positive test strategy' (I want it and soon after that it happens) without looking for what happens without me can be misleading (3) It needs a bit of expert knowledge usually not taught in high-school to do the tests that could also convince an initial skeptic.

Wolfgang