Richard Wiseman

[Rodney]

Okay Rodney. Let's play your game to the end.

Oceanographers purposefully ignored eyewitness accounts and some circumstantial evidence of these Rogue Waves and believed in their models.
So? Get to your point already. It's getting really really boring.

The point is that I believe that the best evidence is that oceanographers generally did not credit accounts of rogue waves, including physical evidence, prior to 1995, even though the totality of the evidence was compelling.

 

[GeeMack]

Regarding knowledge of statistics, not against Linda (or Beth) and I'm not sure about Robin. (I think Robin has done some good research regarding rogue waves, but I don't think it proves the point he is trying to make. What Robin knows about statistics is unclear.) My knowledge of statistics is good, but I'm not a statistician. But against you and GeeMack? Absolutely, because I fail to see how either of you have demonstrated more than an elementary knowledge of statistics.

It's your qualifications to understand the term "statistically significant" that is being brought into question here. In another conversation you once steadfastly maintained that there was some statistical significance in a paranormal claimant making a correct guess in a single round of a one-in-six guessing game, while failing to guess correctly in two other rounds of the same game. So given the protocol required 100% correct responses, you've demonstrated that your idea of "statistically significant" is the same thing that most of us would call a complete failure.

 

[GeeMack]

The point is that I believe that the best evidence is that oceanographers generally did not credit accounts of rogue waves, including physical evidence, prior to 1995, even though the totality of the evidence was compelling.

So you're making an argument from incredulity. Okay. We already knew that.

 

[tsig]

The point is that I believe that the best evidence is that oceanographers generally did not credit accounts of rogue waves, including physical evidence, prior to 1995, even though the totality of the evidence was compelling.

Then it should be quite easy for you to produce a quote from an oceanographer that says they did not credit accounts of rogue waves.

 

[fls]

I've said this before and I think it bears repeating...knowledge of statistics does not seem to confer an understanding of what "statistically significant" can be taken to mean. Rather, it seems to involve a different skillset. It's like knowing how to speak English does not mean that one understands literary criticism. But a misunderstanding of "statistically significant" is of little importance compared to a failure to understand hypothesis testing, which is the much larger problem demonstrated by parapsychological research (of which the lack of control groups is a symptom).

Linda

 

[Darat]

My definition is any type of paranormal activity, which would include telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, and psychokinesis, among other things. So, for example, if you were convinced that the statistically significant results of the Ganzfeld experiments cannot be explained by any non-paranormal means, you would believe that psi exists. However, that does not necessarily mean that you would believe in levitation or palm-reading.

That seems to be a meaningless definition as it can't be used to test for anything.

 

[catsmate]

* Flannan Isles (1900) – three lighthouse keepers vanished after a storm that resulted in wave-damaged equipment being found 34 meters (112 ft) above sea level.

While I'm not an expert and have only cursory knowledge of the other giant wave cases you cite I *do* have fairly detailed knowledge about the loss of Ducat, Macarthur and Marshall in 1900 on Flannan Isle. I refer you to the report of Superintendent Muirhead for more details but his conclusion, that the three men were washed off the island by a "roller" when attempting to secure the equipment store near the island's jetty matches the known facts. The store had been damaged by an earlier storm.

While you claim of water damaged equipment 34m above sea level is true, it should be noted that the equipment store was located in a gully in the rock (a geo) and thus susceptible to funneling of wave action. Such waves were uncommon but hardly unknown either to the keepers or to the experienced Superintendent of Lighthouses.
FYI there are several errors in the Wikipedia entry especially regarding weather conditions and the timeline of events.
Neither Gibson's poem or Doctor Who are accurate either..... Sorry no aliens, ghosts, mermaids involved just a prosaic accident.

 

[Robin]

How do I obtain this study?

All of the studies on extreme waves from the 70's and 80's mentioned by Massel and other sources are readily available from the usual sources of technical documents.


I have done enough work here already, I shouldn't have to hold your hand.

But again - are you suggesting that Massel is lying about these studies?

I'm just trying to understand why there is such a consensus among reputable journalists that oceanographers did not believe in rogue waves prior to 1995.

One journalist is a consensus?

What about the journalist in the Scientific American who says that scientists predicted the extreme waves? Why are you so steadfastly ignoring him?

Also, given the number of articles that say that, prior to 1995, oceanographers relegated rogue waves to the same category as mermaids and sea monsters,...

Meaning that you have seen this story repeated a few times on the internet...

I would think an oceanographer or two would have set the record straight by citing a pre-1995 statement by an oceanographer or two stating that they believed in the existence of rogue waves.

Why would any oceanographer have known in advance that someone was going to make this absurd claim?

But I have already demonstrated that they have much better.

They have studies in technical journals documenting the measurement of extreme waves and the models they use to predict even more extreme waves.

A couple of the articles you have cited mention that oceanographers have started using non-linear Schroedinger equations to model waves.

They appear to be implying that this was in response to the 1995 wave. But do you know when this was first mooted?

In 1976 - in Ronald Smith's "Giant Waves" in The Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

If you will only take your head out of the sand and do some research you will find many studies of extreme waves in the 70's and 80's

Again - it is time to face up to the evidence. This story you are peddling - it is a myth.

 

[Robin]

Then it should be quite easy for you to produce a quote from an oceanographer that says they did not credit accounts of rogue waves.

I have been asking him for this for a while.

He cannot produce it.

He is ignoring the evidence I produced that oceanographers did very much believe in extreme waves - studied them, predicted them in their models.

I think it is ironic that he is accusing the oceanographers of having ignored evidence, when he is the one that is in fact ignoring evidence.

 

[Robin]

The point is that I believe that the best evidence is that oceanographers generally did not credit accounts of rogue waves, including physical evidence, prior to 1995, even though the totality of the evidence was compelling.

What evidence?

I am still waiting for you to produce any. You have come up with nothing. Just a flimsy wisp of internet hearsay and one article by a non scientist.

Is that what you call the best evidence?

You have still to produce even one oceanographer saying that rogue waves don't exist.

I have produced evidence of studies done in the 70's of extreme waves but it hasn't shaken your certainty about this claim one bit, has it?

If this is a good example of your ability to examine evidence then I think it is very telling.

 

[fls]

Also, given the number of articles that say that, prior to 1995, oceanographers relegated rogue waves to the same category as mermaids and sea monsters, I would think an oceanographer or two would have set the record straight by citing a pre-1995 statement by an oceanographer or two stating that they believed in the existence of rogue waves.

First, you would have to determine whether an oceanographer would bother doing so. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions and on numerous topics, journalists frequently get it wrong when attempting to convey both scientific information and the general opinion of scientists working in the field. This problem is so pervasive, that it is like pissing in the ocean to attempt to set the record straight by challenging statements in an article. And generally scientists pay little attention to what is going on in the lay press; demonstrating much more interest in their technical journals and in discussion with colleagues. The only attention they may pay to it is to ridicule it at their next coffee break.

However, even if an oceanographer decided to take up the cause, how would you know about it? Corrections to articles get published in subsequent issues, tucked away in a corner. Or they are published as a letter to the editor. Or they may not be published at all in the original journal. Those miscellaneous bits of information aren't usually included in archived material and so are unlikely to be accessible. And even if they were, someone who wishes to present a biased viewpoint can simply fail to make note of any corrections and you wouldn't know any better.

And why would you request that an oceanographer provide evidence for the opinion of oceanographers pre-1995 when you seem perfectly happy to believe a journalist who has provided no evidence for their claim?

Linda

 

[Robin]

Okay Rodney. Let's play your game to the end.

Oceanographers purposefully ignored eyewitness accounts and some circumstantial evidence of these Rogue Waves and believed in their models.
So? Get to your point already. It's getting really really boring.

Yes, Rodney - suppose it were true.

What is your point?

 

[Rodney]

In another conversation you once steadfastly maintained that there was some statistical significance in a paranormal claimant making a correct guess in a single round of a one-in-six guessing game, while failing to guess correctly in two other rounds of the same game. So given the protocol required 100% correct responses, you've demonstrated that your idea of "statistically significant" is the same thing that most of us would call a complete failure.

I pointed out that, while Anita Ikonen clearly failed her Independent Investigations Group test last November in Los Angeles, her performance was barely outside the .05 level of statistical significance; see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5343500&postcount=1018 When my calculation was criticized, I noted that the criticism was incorrect, because the test of Anita's alleged ability was clearly a two-step process; see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5346980&postcount=1145

 

[Rodney]

All of the studies on extreme waves from the 70's and 80's mentioned by Massel and other sources are readily available from the usual sources of technical documents.

Are they available for free somewhere?

 

[tsig]

Are they available for free somewhere?

If your making these claims you should have already read them.

 

[Rodney]

Yes, Rodney - suppose it were true.

What is your point?

The point is that scientists are human beings who, like non-scientists, tend to turn deaf ears to evidence that contradict the conventional wisdom. So, while there may be a strong consensus among scientists that a particular theory is incontrovertible, that may not be the case.

 

[GeeMack]

I pointed out that, while Anita Ikonen clearly failed her Independent Investigations Group test last November in Los Angeles, her performance was barely outside the .05 level of statistical significance; see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5343500&postcount=1018 When my calculation was criticized, I noted that the criticism was incorrect, because the test of Anita's alleged ability was clearly a two-step process; see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5346980&postcount=1145

And you still insist on misunderstanding the protocol. But how about if you want to beat that dead horse, and continue to have your unsupported argument and your lack of qualifications to understand statistical significance on that issue properly criticized, take it to that other thread.

 

[paximperium]

The point is that scientists are human beings who, like non-scientists, tend to turn deaf ears to evidence that contradict the conventional wisdom. So, while there may be a strong consensus among scientists that a particular theory is incontrovertible, that may not be the case.

So?
Come on Rodney. Come out and say it.
"Scientists are turning a blind eye to the evidence for..."

 

[paximperium]

And you still insist on misunderstanding the protocol. But how about if you want to beat that dead horse, and continue to have your unsupported argument and your lack of qualifications to understand statistical significance on that issue properly criticized, take it to that other thread.

I just went through that thread.
It's a pretty good example of Rodney's delusions about his skills in statistics. It is an even greater example of his desperate need to defend any woo by anomaly hunting and post hoc ass backward thinking by changing protocols. He would make a great pharma "researcher", he gets to change research protocols when he thinks he sees some positive finding.

 

[Darat]

The point is that scientists are human beings who, like non-scientists, tend to turn deaf ears to evidence that contradict the conventional wisdom. So, while there may be a strong consensus among scientists that a particular theory is incontrovertible, that may not be the case.

And? Can you carry on and make the point that you want to make or is it as trite as "people are people"?