Scientists and Engineers Who Thought Heavier Than Air Flying Machines Were Impossible

[Rodney]

Such as?

How about the history of meteorites?

" . . . in 1492, just outside the town of Ensisheim in France (though the
town was considered part of Germany at the time, hence the name), a boy reported
seeing a large (127 kg or 279 pound) rock fall out of the sky. The local
authorities went out to investigate and they did indeed find a large rock. Since
it did not look like any local rocks, it was concluded that this was a strange
supernatural event. Soon, the meteorite gained wide renown and many people
wanted a piece of the rock (this was in the days before Prudential Insurance
even existed) so they simply chipped off a chunk. Eventually the town magistrate
took possession of it. By that time, the meteorite was reduced to about half
the size it was when it was discovered (55 kg or 121 pounds). In 1535, the
Emperor Ferdinand of Austria took the meteorite and placed it on display at the
Regency Palace in the town. Today, it can be seen at the old town hall in
Ensisheim. Despite the evidence of the meteorite, scientists did not believe
that meteorites really came from the sky. Even after the writings of Copernicus
and the observations of Galileo discredited Aristotelian cosmology, the old
belief in an Earthly origin for meteorites still held on. But, as the 18th
century was coming to an end, things would change. Apparently inspired by a
large number of meteorite reports, German scientist Ernst Friedrich Chladni
published a book in 1794 that claimed meteorites actually came from space.
However, the book was not well received by the scientific community who felt
meteorites were only reported by ignorant peasants and crackpots. Then, in 1803,
hundreds of small meteorites fell on the town of L'Aigle, in France. The French
Academy of Sciences sent Jean-Baptiste Biot to investigate the report. After
interviewing numerous witnesses and examining the meteorites, he concluded that
the meteorites actually came from space. Due to the thoroughness of Biot's
report, the French Academy of Sciences accepted this finding. Eventually, even
American scientists would come to the same conclusion. In 1807, a local judge in
Weston, Connecticut spotted a fireball, which zipped across the sky and
disappeared nearly overhead. The man heard a noise and saw a stone fall to the
ground. He contacted Yale University and two professors investigated the matter.
Like Biot, they found that the meteorites came from space. However, there were
still some skeptics, including one who is well known to every American - Thomas
Jefferson. In addition to being a statesman, writer, and historian, Jefferson
was probably the most scientifically literate man in American political history.
His interests included linguistics (mainly Native American languages),
architecture, engineering, paleontology, and other fields. When Jefferson heard
about the Yale report on the meteorites, he supposedly said 'I would rather
believe that two Yankee professors would lie than believe that stones fall from
heaven.' This skepticism was probably due to the fact that many people at that
time found it hard to conceive of anything in the solar system other than the
Sun, the planets, and the occasional comet."

See http://www.asterism.org/newsletter/2007-03.txt

 

[Jimbo07]

He contacted Yale University and two professors investigated the matter.
Like Biot, they found that the meteorites came from space. However, there were
still some skeptics, including one who is well known to every American - Thomas
Jefferson... This skepticism was probably due to the fact that many people at that
time found it hard to conceive of anything in the solar system other than the
Sun, the planets, and the occasional comet."

So, these professors (presumably scientists, or whatever) had a preponderance of evidence that rocks fell from the sky. Subsequent evidence (collected over centuries, now) validated their position... and Thomas Jefferson didn't believe them? So what?

How is this a slight on science? How is science being held back?

ETA: My feeling is that this is leading somewhere, but I'm not aware enough of your posting history to conclude where this is going. Is there a theory that you think is currently being held back by ignorant scientists? Skeptics? Are you conflating posting here with the practice of science? Was this whole exercise just a humorous, "scientists say the darndest things," thread? If so, then you should go after engineers... I hear they're... not quite bright .

 

[Rodney]

So, these professors (presumably scientists, or whatever) had a preponderance of evidence that rocks fell from the sky. Subsequent evidence (collected over centuries, now) validated their position... and Thomas Jefferson didn't believe them? So what?

The point you're missing is that rocks have been falling from the sky throughout history and a German boy's account provided strong evidence of just such an event in 1492, but meteorites were not taken seriously by most scientists until -- more than 300 years later -- a meteor shower was finally thoroughly investigated by an unbiased young scientist.

How is this a slight on science?

It's not a slight on science, but rather on scientists who can't adjust their paradigm.

How is science being held back?

When the scientific establishment refuses to acknowledge reality, progress is impaired.

ETA: My feeling is that this is leading somewhere, but I'm not aware enough of your posting history to conclude where this is going. Is there a theory that you think is currently being held back by ignorant scientists? Skeptics?

The paranormal, for one.

Are you conflating posting here with the practice of science? Was this whole exercise just a humorous, "scientists say the darndest things," thread? If so, then you should go after engineers... I hear they're... not quite bright .

I don't think it's a matter of intelligence, but rather, attitude.

 

[fls]

ETA: My feeling is that this is leading somewhere, but I'm not aware enough of your posting history to conclude where this is going. Is there a theory that you think is currently being held back by ignorant scientists? Skeptics?

He considers the evidence for some paranormal processes (for example, the ganzfeld experiments, Edgar Cayce's medical mediumship) to be overwhelming to the point where it is unreasonable for us to withhold our consent (in reference to "science is all those things which are confirmed to such a degree that it would be unreasonable to withhold one's provisional consent. ~Stephen Jay Gould"). The examples he brings to this thread serve to (I presume) lend credence to his idea that the rejection of the paranormal is yet another example.

Linda

 

[Jimbo07]

Oh.

 

[Lithrael]

The point you're missing is that rocks have been falling from the sky throughout history and a German boy's account provided strong evidence of just such an event in 1492, but meteorites were not taken seriously by most scientists until -- more than 300 years later -- a meteor shower was finally thoroughly investigated by an unbiased young scientist.

Why should they have been taken more seriously earlier? There was no good reason to believe stories about them until there was a good catalog of observational data and enough lumps of space nickel to raise the more serious eyebrows. It seems to me that they were a perfectly reasonable thing to be skeptical about, in the absence of good evidence. I don't think it was a matter of scientists being biased against them, rather, at the time there was too little to go on, even theoretically.

Even if you wanted to extrapolate this to the state of paranormal research, I'd reply that it's not taken seriously because there's too little to go on, even theoretically, and there's no point moaning about it unless theory or technology gives us amazing new areas to explore and the tools to explore them.

 

[sol invictus]

As Lithrael says, the problem with all your examples is they show precisely the contrary of what you would like them to. In all cases you've raised so far there was good reason for skepticism, but once solid scientific evidence was found, the skepticism was replaced very rapidly by acceptance. That's just as it should be.

The story about meteors is interesting, but meteors are very rare and there was little opportunity to study them. You must realize how many mystical phenomena were being reported in the same time period - witchcraft, angels and demons, magic of all sorts. Surely you agree that most of that was not real? So skepticism in anecdotal accounts of these strange events was perfectly justified, but once this one was investigated carefully and confirmed it was accepted (with the possible exception of Jefferson, but again, context is important - he may well have been being grumpy as a bit of a tongue-in-cheek joke; he was like that).

If you're trying to use all of this to argue that the paranormal is real you've got a major problem: people have been investigating paranormal claims under carefully controlled conditions for many many years, and yet essentially no one accepts that there is anything there. None of your examples come anywhere close to that. Not to mention the million dollar challenge...

 

[schlitt]

What concerns me is the arrogant mindset that has historically led so many members of the scientific establishment to argue that something is impossible because it doesn't fit with the current paradigm.

A relating subset of this problem is where people like you come in Rodney.

You have convinced yourself that various paranormal phenomena are real, and therefore use selection reasoning and bias to further confirm the beliefs you want to hold onto so dearly. This type of reasoning is what leads to flawed experimentation, skewed data analysis, and false beliefs.

The fact remains there is no clear, unambiguous evidence for your paranormal beliefs. Such as there is for flight, or radiation, or gravity etc etc...

You want to make it seem as though the people who want good evidence before they believe are being unreasonable, and this is just not the case.

 

[mhaze]

He considers the evidence for some paranormal processes (for example, the ganzfeld experiments, Edgar Cayce's medical mediumship) to be overwhelming to the point where it is unreasonable for us to withhold our consent (in reference to "science is all those things which are confirmed to such a degree that it would be unreasonable to withhold one's provisional consent. ~Stephen Jay Gould"). The examples he brings to this thread serve to (I presume) lend credence to his idea that the rejection of the paranormal is yet another example.

Linda

Checking the Anderson textbook, indeed I do not find paranormal listed under any subsection. Considering the matter a bit, I offer the following take on why we actually do have it correct, as opposed to the option of considering paranormal influences.

PARANORMAL FLIGHT

1. Witches on broomsticks.
2. Flying carpets.
3. Barefoot illiterate swamis levitating

REGULAR FLIGHT

1. Drinks served.
2. IPOD and laptops allowed.
3. Air conditioned cabins.

"REGULAR FLIGHT" shows obvious superiorities over "PARANORMAL FLIGHT".

 

[Rodney]

"REGULAR FLIGHT" shows obvious superiorities over "PARANORMAL FLIGHT".

Yes, but not over "Paranormal NON-Flight":

"You may have a strong feeling to do or say something – even something that seems illogical at the time – which later turns out to be correct course of action. 10 nights in a row, Cincinnati office worker David Booth had nightmares of an American airlines jet flipping over and crashing down in a huge fireball. Every night Booth woke up crying. The FAA took his dreams seriously and tried unsuccessfully to identify the particular jet – figuring it was either a Boeing 727 or a DC 10 from Booth’s description. Booth never had the nightmares again after May 25, 1979. On that day, actress Lindsay Wagner, TV’s Bionic Woman, had a strong negative premonition as she and her mother were about [to] board an American Airlines DC-10, Flight 191, at Chicago’s O’Hare airport. Wagner canceled the pair’s reservations. Seconds after takeoff, one of the jet’s engines broke off, the jet flipped over, and crashed, killing all 273 aboard in a horrible fireball."

See http://searchwarp.com/swa43688.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191

 

[Almo]

Or the "They laughed at Adam Sandler" argument.

I didn't. He's not funny.

 

[fls]

Yes, but not over "Paranormal NON-Flight":

"You may have a strong feeling to do or say something – even something that seems illogical at the time – which later turns out to be correct course of action. 10 nights in a row, Cincinnati office worker David Booth had nightmares of an American airlines jet flipping over and crashing down in a huge fireball. Every night Booth woke up crying. The FAA took his dreams seriously and tried unsuccessfully to identify the particular jet – figuring it was either a Boeing 727 or a DC 10 from Booth’s description. Booth never had the nightmares again after May 25, 1979. On that day, actress Lindsay Wagner, TV’s Bionic Woman, had a strong negative premonition as she and her mother were about [to] board an American Airlines DC-10, Flight 191, at Chicago’s O’Hare airport. Wagner canceled the pair’s reservations. Seconds after takeoff, one of the jet’s engines broke off, the jet flipped over, and crashed, killing all 273 aboard in a horrible fireball."

See http://searchwarp.com/swa43688.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191

Have any of those details been confirmed? They weren't included in the wikipedia article you linked to.

Linda

 

[dudalb]

I wondered when Rodney would get around to peddling his Woo.
It was so freaking obvious what he was up to.

 

[bruto]

Rodney's analogy between powered, controlled, heavier-than-air flight and paranormal events strikes me as having a deep and fundamental flaw. Here it is: When skeptics, wrong as they turned out to be, announced that they did not believe this sort of flight would ever be possible, it was demonstrably true that it had not yet happened, at least not publicly. The skeptics were wrong about the possibility of a future development, but when it happened, the argument was over. This differs in a substantive way from skepticism about the existence of something unproven which has supposedly been occurring for a long time.

Rodney, do you not perceive the difference here?

 

[Rodney]

Have any of those details been confirmed? They weren't included in the wikipedia article you linked to.

Linda

Regarding Lindsay Wagner's premonition, see http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0905993/bio --

"Was scheduled to be a passenger on American Airlines Flight 191 from Chicago to Los Angeles on May 25, 1979, but she felt uneasy about flying on that plane. Wagner skipped the flight, which crashed only minutes after takeoff, killing everyone on board."

Regarding David Booth, see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2474332&postcount=198 --

"Back to the Playboy account: 'Because of it thorough documentation, Booth's extraordinary dream was recounted in nearly every newspaper in the country. A series of photographs of the crash, taken by fantastic coincidence, showed the DC-10 descend, roll over, then disappear behind some buildings for only a moment. Then the fireball. Not every detail of Booth's dream matched the facts -- for instance, he saw the plane bank to the right, whereas flight 191 banked to the left. But no one, not even the FAA, questions the uncanny similarity between major details of Booth's vision and the actual crash.'"

 

[Rodney]

Rodney's analogy between powered, controlled, heavier-than-air flight and paranormal events strikes me as having a deep and fundamental flaw. Here it is: When skeptics, wrong as they turned out to be, announced that they did not believe this sort of flight would ever be possible, it was demonstrably true that it had not yet happened, at least not publicly. The skeptics were wrong about the possibility of a future development, but when it happened, the argument was over. This differs in a substantive way from skepticism about the existence of something unproven which has supposedly been occurring for a long time.

Rodney, do you not perceive the difference here?

The problem with your analogy, in my opinion, is that the paranormal does not operate in the same manner as other scientific phenomena. Specifically, while I think the paranormal has been amply demonstrated at well above chance levels, results are frequently not positive. On the other hand, once the Wright Brothers made their breakthrough on December 17, 1903, heavier than air flight flight progressed rapidly, with few negative results. However, I do think the time will come when the paranormal will be demonstrated conclusively and the argument will also be over with respect to it.

 

[mhaze]

Yes, but not over "Paranormal NON-Flight":

"You may have a strong feeling to do or say something – even something that seems illogical at the time – which later turns out to be correct course of action. 10 nights in a row, Cincinnati office worker David Booth had nightmares

Oh, I don't know.

You may have a strong feeling to do or say something – even something that seems illogical at the time – which later turns out to be correct course of action.

Would you advise pilots to follow their feelings, or their training?

 

[Rodney]

Oh, I don't know.

You may have a strong feeling to do or say something – even something that seems illogical at the time – which later turns out to be correct course of action.

Would you advise pilots to follow their feelings, or their training?

I doubt if they conflict very often. But, let's suppose the pilot of AA Flight 191 on May 25, 1979 had a feeling that there was something wrong with the number one engine and refused to fly until it was thoroughly inspected. Would not that have been a good thing?

 

[fls]

Regarding Lindsay Wagner's premonition, see http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0905993/bio --

"Was scheduled to be a passenger on American Airlines Flight 191 from Chicago to Los Angeles on May 25, 1979, but she felt uneasy about flying on that plane. Wagner skipped the flight, which crashed only minutes after takeoff, killing everyone on board."

That information is unreferenced.

Regarding David Booth, see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2474332&postcount=198 --

"Back to the Playboy account: 'Because of it thorough documentation, Booth's extraordinary dream was recounted in nearly every newspaper in the country. A series of photographs of the crash, taken by fantastic coincidence, showed the DC-10 descend, roll over, then disappear behind some buildings for only a moment. Then the fireball. Not every detail of Booth's dream matched the facts -- for instance, he saw the plane bank to the right, whereas flight 191 banked to the left. But no one, not even the FAA, questions the uncanny similarity between major details of Booth's vision and the actual crash.'"

Can you give the source for the documentation of Booth's dreams prior to the crash?

Linda

 

[Gregory]

I guess conversation has moved on to Jefferson and other things, but Kelvin did say this, in a letter to the Aeronautical Society:

I am afraid I am not in the flight for “aerial navigation”. I was greatly interested in your work with kites; but I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning or of expectation of good results from any of the trials we hear of. So you will understand that I would not care to be a member of the aëronautical Society.

Source

This was before the Wright Brothers did their thing.