Richard Wiseman

[Rodney]

Amazingly, that issue of Playboy can be found on the internet.

But can you view the Bo Derek "sensational nude pictorial"?

And there's an apparent discrepency in Jack Barker's statement between this and his interview on the "Premonition" DVD. According to the discussion on the wiki page Rodney linked to earlier, Jack says "In the 30 years I was with FAA that was the only time anybody ever called in with any kind of a dream like that, that I'm aware of" while in the Playboy interview he says "It sounded like any of a hundred dreams I've heard reported in my 25 years in the aviation business [...] People call in with them all the time"

This doesn't mean that Booth's premonition didn't happen, but it does show what a slippery thing memory can be.

I'm not sure that's a discrepancy, although the DVD interview probably took place long after the event, which could have caused a memory problem. But what Mr. Barker may have meant is that Booth's dream was far more specific than the "I dreamed a plane crashed somewhere" type. In any event, the key point is that it is well-documented that Booth did call the Cincinnati FAA Office three days prior to the crash of AA Flight 191 to report his dream. Ray Pinkerton and Paul Williams of that Office then immediately called Jack Barker, who was the FAA Public Affairs Director in Atlanta, to relate the dream.

And also raises this possibility that out of hundreds of reported dreams, one is bound to be correct.

It depend on how specific Booth's dream was. The Playboy article says that it was very specific, but we don't have the notes of Pinkerton, Williams, and Barker. However, Pinkerton recounts in the Playboy article how sincere Booth seemed, which may be why Pinkerton and Williams immediately called Barker. I doubt in many instances where a plane crash dream is called in to the FAA that it is taken so seriously that another FAA office is called.

 

[Robin]

"The idea that stones can fall out of the sky was scornfully denounced by the Académie [French Academy of Sciences) as an unscientific absurdity. Antoine Lavoisier, for example, the father of modern chemistry, told his fellow Academicians, 'Stones cannot fall from the sky, because there are no stones in the sky!'

Looking for the scholarly cites at the bottom of this page, finding none.

Matt Salusbury, writing for the Fortean Times says:

I also could not find any writings by Lavoisier in which he said: “Stones cannot fall from the sky, because there are no stones in the sky”, the proclamation which allegedly triggered the mass meteor throw-out. Lavoisier was far too busy reforming the French government’s finances in 1790 to bother with meteors; most of his writings from this year are about the affairs of state. And he wasn’t denying the existence of meteors by then, merely speculating that they came from the upper atmosphere, not outer space.
​

It seems that Lavoisier did not simply dismiss reports of stones falling from the sky but studied them and came to wrong conclusions.

In fact he is credited with the first chemical analysis of a meteor. He simply made a wrong conclusion about it, but the Academie's conclusions were measured and open.

And here is a more even handed appraisal of the situation:

There was, then, a wide spectrum of attitudes among eighteenth century scientists about the reality of meteorite falls. Some were militant disbelievers; some were skeptics; some were noncommittal; some were silent about their belief for fear of ridicule; and some were outspoken believers.

Yet the evidence does not support the generalization that all eighteenth-century scientists - or the eighteenth century scientific community, if it is admitted that there was a scientific community in the modern sense - disbelieved in the fall of meteors.

Moreover the assertion that scientists refused to credit reports of stone falls because they came from nonscientific sources is contrary to the facts.

Cosmic Debris - Meteorites in History. John G Burke University of California Press 1986 p 36​

 

[cj.23]

No such progress is made with ESP, or ghosts, etc. - century upon century passes and no one has been able to prove the existence of such powers. Our knowledge in just about every other area of human endeavor advances by leaps and bounds; paranormal studies stay paranormal because no real progress is ever made. Anecdotal evidence of "powers" is rife, as it always has been. Paranormal studies are inconclusive; believers crow about shaky results that would be considered abject failures in any other field of endeavor.

And therein lies the rub for "paranormal sciences" - eventually the disparity between such "studies" and the astounding acceleration of progress in all other fields of scientific endeavor becomes convincing evidence against such abilities in and of itself.

The old adage "put up or shut up" increasingly comes into play.

I thought this was a useful and interesting argument, but I'm going to raise a quibble. This assumes that all research fields receive equal attention. Where are the positive possibilities economically for psi research? Van Schouten back in 85 noted the USA had 34,000 psychologists working on research: the parapsychology community is perhaps about 50 strong, based on the PhD's I know of. The percentage of funding allocated to parapsychology since 1882 in the UK is less than five percent of one years funding on orthodox psychology in the USA alone. SO really is it any surprise if progress is slow? Who wants to research in an area where there are no funding options, little chance of making any progress and your career may suffer as you are categorised as a woo? Ultimately, most parapsychology is performed by enthusiastic individuals who are working in their own time for the hell of it - and if anything positive develops, money may be thrown at it, but for the moment we have a very small research effort. That may be no bad thing, but we can't just say the lack of progress is in itself indicative of much???

cj x

 

[Rodney]

Can you give me an example of what it is allegedly downplaying?

For example an oceanographer denying that rogue waves can occur.

Or, alternately, an oceanographer implying that the linear models were completely accurate representations of what oceans did?

As I said, it sounds highly implausible that a scientist would make such a claim about any model, never mind a simple model of a huge and complex system such as an ocean.

Especially when it is widely understood that even modelling water flowing through a pipe is problematic.

Again, it sounds like the misunderstanding involved in myth that scientists claimed that bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly.

Many reputable sources say that oceanographers doubted the existence of rogue waves prior to 1995. For example, according to a New York Times article of July 11, 2006: "Enormous waves that sweep the ocean are traditionally called rogue waves, implying that they have a kind of freakish rarity. Over the decades, skeptical oceanographers have doubted their existence and tended to lump them together with sightings of mermaids and sea monsters." See http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/11/science/11wave.html

 

[Ersby]

I'm not sure that's a discrepancy, although the DVD interview probably took place long after the event, which could have caused a memory problem. But what Mr. Barker may have meant is that Booth's dream was far more specific than the "I dreamed a plane crashed somewhere" type.

But he said, barely a year after the event, "It sounded like any of a hundred dreams I've heard reported in my 25 years in the aviation business" which doesn't make it sound like it was that different.

Ultimately, we'd need the notes and also an idea on how frequently this happens to draw any kind of conclusion.

And, yes, it does have the Bo Derek spread.

 

[Robin]

Can you give me an example of what it is allegedly downplaying?

For example an oceanographer denying that rogue waves can occur.

Or, alternately, an oceanographer implying that the linear models were completely accurate representations of what oceans did?

Many reputable sources say that oceanographers doubted the existence of rogue waves prior to 1995. For example, according to a New York Times article of July 11, 2006: "Enormous waves that sweep the ocean are traditionally called rogue waves, implying that they have a kind of freakish rarity. Over the decades, skeptical oceanographers have doubted their existence and tended to lump them together with sightings of mermaids and sea monsters." See http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/11/science/11wave.html

I will take that as a "no".

So we have this view that was allegedly the consensus among the majority of the oceanographic community until a mere 15 years ago.

And there is not even a single example of an oceanographer having expressed this view?

And there is apparently a mathematical model of deep water wave behaviour that was regarded as near infallible by the oceanographic community until 15 years ago, which predicts the rarity of these waves.

And nobody cites any paper in which this is presented.

And in fact if you have a look at deep water wave modelling in the decades leading up to 1995 you find that there is not one model, but a variety of competing models - constantly being improved and revised. And all with their limitations and error conditions stated.

For example chapter 5 of Stanislaw Massel's "Ocean surface waves - their physics and predictions".

So the evidence goes against the idea that the oceanographers so trusted some mathematical model of wave behaviour that they used it to discount rogue waves.

 

[Rodney]

And in fact if you have a look at deep water wave modelling in the decades leading up to 1995 you find that there is not one model, but a variety of competing models - constantly being improved and revised. And all with their limitations and error conditions stated.

Did any of these pre-1995 models allow for the possibility of rogue waves occurring on a daily basis?

 

[Robin]

Did any of these pre-1995 models allow for the possibility of rogue waves occurring on a daily basis?

I didn't claim that oceanographers predicted rogue waves. I doubted your claim that they dismissed them on the basis of mathematical modelling.

You have a specific claim about the existence of oceanographic mathematical modelling that predicts rogue waves only every 10,000 years and yet you cannot cite this or give me any clue about how I can find it.

You further claim that oceanographers relied on this model so much that they used it to dismiss the idea of more frequent rogue waves.

But you cannot show any evidence that this is the case.

What I have shown is that, prior to 1995 there was no one model and there was no model which anyone appeared to regard as infallible as you claim.

On the contrary the strengths and weaknesses of each approach are openly discussed.

 

[Mojo]

Many reputable sources say that oceanographers doubted the existence of rogue waves prior to 1995. For example, according to a New York Times article of July 11, 2006: "Enormous waves that sweep the ocean are traditionally called rogue waves, implying that they have a kind of freakish rarity. Over the decades, skeptical oceanographers have doubted their existence and tended to lump them together with sightings of mermaids and sea monsters." See http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/11/science/11wave.html

What is your position on the existence of mermaids and sea monsters?

 

[Rodney]

You have a specific claim about the existence of oceanographic mathematical modelling that predicts rogue waves only every 10,000 years and yet you cannot cite this or give me any clue about how I can find it.

It's not my claim, it's the claim of several articles, including the NY Times' article that I cited: "Their [oceanographers] mathematical models predicted that giant waves were statistical improbabilities that should arise once every 10,000 years or so." See http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/11/science/11wave.html?pagewanted=2
The Wikipedia articles states: "Many years of research have confirmed that waves of up to 35 meters (115 ft) in height are much more common than mathematical probability theory would predict using a Rayleigh distribution of wave heights." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_waves

 

[Rodney]

What is your position on the existence of mermaids and sea monsters?

I prefer the existence of mermaids to sea monsters.

 

[Mojo]

I prefer the existence of mermaids to sea monsters.

Do you think either exists?

 

[Rodney]

Do you think either exists?

I'm not aware of any evidence for the existence of mermaids. I think sea "monsters" could exist, especially if that term is broadly defined. However, my point about rogue waves is that, between the credible eyewitness accounts and the physical evidence, oceanographers should have reconsidered their inaccurate models long before 1995.

 

[Robin]

It's not my claim, it's the claim of several articles, including the NY Times' article that I cited: "Their [oceanographers] mathematical models predicted that giant waves were statistical improbabilities that should arise once every 10,000 years or so." See http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/11/science/11wave.html?pagewanted=2
The Wikipedia articles states: "Many years of research have confirmed that waves of up to 35 meters (115 ft) in height are much more common than mathematical probability theory would predict using a Rayleigh distribution of wave heights." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_waves

So let me get this clear.

Are you no longer claiming that oceanographers dismissed accounts of rogue waves on the basis of these models?

Are you now only saying that their models did not predict rogue waves?

In which case, what is your point? Nobody expects physical models of something so large and complex as the deep water ocean to be perfect.

Oh, and by the say, maybe you shouldn't rely too much on what Wiki says. Even the Wiki article says "citation needed".

Massel again:

It is widely acknowledged that the Rayleigh distribution does not reflect a measured distribution of the more extreme waves from the field data. Equation (4.122) over-predicts the probabilities of the higher waves in a record, and the error increases towards the low-probability tail of the distribution

Stanislaw R Massel "Ocean surface waves: their physics and prediction" P 158 (My bolding)​

This is the opposite of what Wiki says. So the only model actually mentioned was predicting rogue waves more frequently than the field data was confirming.

The moral is don't trust the pat narratives about science you read in daily newspapers, Wiki and random websites.

The really reputable sources are the tech literature.

 

[Robin]

Massel is a goldmine of information.

On page 383 he says that according to predictions made in 1950 based on weathership data the highest wave in a 50 year period would be 36 meters (118 feet).

So where does this 10,000 year figure come from?

 

[Robin]

And on page 382 he shows that weather ships were recording waves of 23.2 meters (76 feet), so why would they have been skeptical (as the NY times article suggests) of a wave of 80 feet?

 

[Robin]

However, my point about rogue waves is that, between the credible eyewitness accounts and the physical evidence, oceanographers should have reconsidered their inaccurate models long before 1995.

And what on earth gave you the impression that they didn't "reconsider" their models before 1995?

Even without the information I have provided you ought to have realised that oceanographers did not just assume their models were true and leave it at that.

That isn't how any scientists work. They observe, create models and test models against empirical data. Over and over again.

 

[Mojo]

I'm not aware of any evidence for the existence of mermaids.

But there are plenty of eyewitness accounts of them.

 

[Rodney]

Massel is a goldmine of information.

On page 383 he says that according to predictions made in 1950 based on weathership data the highest wave in a 50 year period would be 36 meters (118 feet).

So where does this 10,000 year figure come from?

I don't know, but I wouldn't think the NY Times would have just made up that figure.

 

[GeeMack]

In controlled tests of psi, results have varied, but overall seem to be highly statistically significant.

Except that your qualifications to understand what is meant by "statistically significant" have been challenged, and you have been wholly unable to demonstrate that you do indeed possess any such qualifications.