Richard Wiseman

[Alan]

The meaning behind the poetic language has been explained for you.

You are still arguing based on the misunderstanding.

 

[paximperium]

Yes, you’re getting close, but strictly speaking there is also no such thing as “good” (or “bad”) evidence either. Evidence is evidence. You either have it or you do not. The preceding adjectives (“extraordinary”, “good”, etc), especially without context, are subjective and emotive post hoc value judgements that should have no place in true sceptical debate (with the implied constraints of conforming to the strict standards of critical thinking, logic and science).

I disagree. There is marked difference in quality of evidence. Bad and crappy evidence based on eyewitnessed accounts is not the same as those based on double blind studies. Otherwise I don't really have much problem with that.

 

[Ersby]

You evidently missed this: "Chladni found that the descriptions were so astonishingly similar from place to place and century to century . . ." So, the evidence had been there long before Chladni, it's just that meteorites did not comport with the conventional scientific wisdom, and so were conveniently ignored.

There is some merit in comparing parapsychology to previous scientific experiments, but there's a danger in allying yourself to the previous winners. For example, I've often seen this argument before when psi proponents compare themselves to meteorology or continental shift, but never to failed sciences like pysiognomy or phrenology.

Also, what was "conventional scientific wisdom" in the centuries leading up to the 19th century? It would've been awash with influences from religion, superstition and politics. We're now going so far back that any meaningful analogy cannot be drawn with today.

 

[fls]

You evidently missed this: "Chladni found that the descriptions were so astonishingly similar from place to place and century to century . . ." So, the evidence had been there long before Chladni, it's just that meteorites did not comport with the conventional scientific wisdom, and so were conveniently ignored.

You misunderstand. The reports are not evidence of anything except falling objects, probably rocks. They do not serve by themselves to tell you the original source of those rocks. More observations were needed to discover which suggestions were plausible. And the question needed to be investigated during a time when people weren't so heavily mired in superstition and dependence upon false authority.

Where we differ is that I regard credible eyewitness accounts and massive physical damage to ships as "good evidence" of rogue waves.

You are begging the question by characterizing the accounts as 'credible' a priori. You haven't provided any evidence that anyone dismissed credible accounts and massive physical damage.

Researchers such as Wiseman are not convinced that psi does not exist, they just haven't seen a smoking gun yet. But bear in mind that both meteorites and rogue waves existed for countless centuries before there was a smoking gun proving their existence.

But the situation is entirely different. Psi isn't claimed to be a freak occurrence under conditions where there are usually no eyewitnesses with extreme limits on the collection of any information. Psi is claimed to occur regularly and frequently under circumstances which have been easily amenable to investigation. And it is the result of those investigations which leads to the conclusion that psi is not a necessary or useful explanation.

Examples?

Aren't you the one who is always pointing out that the effect size of aspirin is comparable to the effect size found in the ganzfeld meta-analyses?

Linda

 

[fls]

Yes, you’re getting close, but strictly speaking there is also no such thing as “good” (or “bad”) evidence either. Evidence is evidence. You either have it or you do not. The preceding adjectives (“extraordinary”, “good”, etc), especially without context, are subjective and emotive post hoc value judgements that should have no place in true sceptical debate (with the implied constraints of conforming to the strict standards of critical thinking, logic and science).

'Evidence' is modified by factors which make it more or less reliable and/or valid. A good example would be the different levels of evidence used in the practise of Evidence-Based Medicine. So when someone says they have "good evidence", what is usually meant is "evidence which has a high likelihood of reliability and validity".

Like a game of Chinese whispers, the true meaning of the message becomes distorted over time to end in complete nonsense. That is, LaPlace’s sensible “weight of evidence” becomes in Sagan’s hands the nonsensical phrase “extraordinary evidence”.

…and no matter the “eminence” of the person stating it, it remains nonsensical.

We should thus, as ever, be forewarned about simply accepting without critical thought received “wisdom”. All is often rarely what it seems.

You may be misunderstanding others' use of the phrase. I will often have arrived at a particular insight independently, but when I later come across a particularly poetic description of that same insight, I may quote those words instead. It's not a case of accepting received wisdom without critical thought. It's a case of critical thought leading to wisdom, but receiving the elegance of someone else's description of that wisdom.

Yes, you are perfectly describing Laplace’s “weight of evidence”, but critically, an “extraordinary amount” of evidence does not make the evidence itself “extraordinary”.

The “people at which it is aimed” do not understand it in equal proportion to the people who state it – because it is nonsense dressed up as wisdom.

You may be right about that. It just seems to matter less if the people who state it do not understand it, as they are already inclined to doubt and are not the ones needing persuasion to do so. Although it definitely becomes a problem if it is an 'authority' who does not understand it and we are expected to come to his defense. (Hence my previous admonition to simply throw Wiseman under the bus. )

Corrected that for you… (but I guess "scientists” can be forgiven, for they simply do not understand what they say).

Well, you've now just provided a perfect example of what I complained about. You seem capable of understanding what is meant by the phrase and that it definitely does not mean "scientists are cheating by raising the bar only for those claims they are biased against", based on your other comments in this post about the weight of evidence. Yet here you go changing what I wrote in order to embroil us in a different argument - an argument about those mean old scientists who won't let anyone else join their club.

Precisely.

ETA: Just a suggestion for an easy solution ...why don't we just agree use the phrase "weight of evidence" and thus forgo all the baggage and argument tied up in the nonsensical phrase "extraordinary evidence"?

I agree, which is why I stated that on the first page of this thread.

Linda

 

[Rodney]

You misunderstand. The reports are not evidence of anything except falling objects, probably rocks. They do not serve by themselves to tell you the original source of those rocks. More observations were needed to discover which suggestions were plausible.

For centuries, credible eyewitnesses saw rocks fall from the sky -- in some cases into fields far removed from any hills. However, the scientific establishment was convinced that there were no rocks in the sky -- therefore the eyewitnesses had to be either mistaken or lying. So it wasn't a case of more observations being needed -- it was a case of the paradigm being wrong and the facts being twisted to fit that paradigm.

And the question needed to be investigated during a time when people weren't so heavily mired in superstition and dependence upon false authority.

Do you think that superstition and dependence upon false authority suddenly lessened in 1803?

You are begging the question by characterizing the accounts as 'credible' a priori. You haven't provided any evidence that anyone dismissed credible accounts and massive physical damage.

In addition to many credible witnesses, the Wikipedia article notes these instances of rogue waves doing extensive physical damage at heights of between 20-40 meters, all of which seem to have been ignored by the scientific establishment:

* The Eagle Island lighthouse (1861) – water broke the glass of the structure's east tower and flooded it, implying a wave that surmounted the 40 m (130 ft) cliff and overwhelmed the 26 m (85 ft) tower.

* 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.

* SS Michelangelo (1966) – hole torn in superstructure, heavy glass smashed 80 feet (24 m) above the waterline, and 3 deaths

* MS München (1978) – lost at sea leaving only "a few bits of wreckage" and signs of sudden damage including extreme forces 66 feet (20 m) above the water line.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave

But the situation is entirely different. Psi isn't claimed to be a freak occurrence under conditions where there are usually no eyewitnesses with extreme limits on the collection of any information. Psi is claimed to occur regularly and frequently under circumstances which have been easily amenable to investigation. And it is the result of those investigations which leads to the conclusion that psi is not a necessary or useful explanation.

The most spectacular examples of psi occur spontaneously, and are not replicable. For example, both Playboy magazine and Arthur C. Clarke's World of Strange Powers reported the case of David Booth. They each state that, in 1979, Booth had a series of recurring premonitory dreams for ten consecutive nights. He saw a plane take off from an airport, bank steeply and then crash. On 22 May 1979 he called the FAA at Greater Cincinnati International Airport, American Airlines, and a psychiatrist at University of Cincinnati. The authorities took him seriously -- the FAA had guessed from Booth's description that the plane was a DC-10 -- but they could do nothing about it. A DC-10 crash -- AA Flight 191 from Chicago to Los Angeles -- occurred three days after Booth's dreams, with a loss of life of 273. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki?title=Talk:American_Airlines_Flight_191 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191

In controlled tests of psi, results have varied, but overall seem to be highly statistically significant. However, there is no smoking gun.

Aren't you the one who is always pointing out that the effect size of aspirin is comparable to the effect size found in the ganzfeld meta-analyses?

Yes, but you alluded to medical effects being "as elusive and fickle as psi is claimed to be", which I don't agree is the case. Psi involves human performance, medical effects do not.

 

[fls]

For centuries, credible eyewitnesses saw rocks fall from the sky -- in some cases into fields far removed from any hills. However, the scientific establishment was convinced that there were no rocks in the sky -- therefore the eyewitnesses had to be either mistaken or lying. So it wasn't a case of more observations being needed -- it was a case of the paradigm being wrong and the facts being twisted to fit that paradigm.

You didn't provide any evidence that scientists didn't think there were any rocks in the sky, only that some pre-scientific thinkers did not think there were rocks in space.

Do you think that superstition and dependence upon false authority suddenly lessened in 1803?

It was certainly less at that time than it was in the time of Aristotle and of Newton.

In addition to many credible witnesses, the Wikipedia article notes these instances of rogue waves doing extensive physical damage at heights of between 20-40 meters, all of which seem to have been ignored by the scientific establishment:

You provided no evidence credible reports were ignored. An article you referenced sensationalized it, but other more scholarly accounts of the history, such as that provided by Robin, give a different impression.

The most spectacular examples of psi occur spontaneously, and are not replicable.

So what? Lesser examples are readily available for investigation.

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

Tests of psi, such as the ganzfeld tests, are almost universally performed without control groups, which means that the occasional positive experimental could simply reflect the effects of unchecked bias plus chance.

Yes, but you alluded to medical effects being "as elusive and fickle as psi is claimed to be", which I don't agree is the case. Psi involves human performance, medical effects do not.

Medical effects are similarly very much about human performance.

Linda

 

[Rodney]

You didn't provide any evidence that scientists didn't think there were any rocks in the sky, only that some pre-scientific thinkers did not think there were rocks in space.

"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!' The concept of meteorites was thus condemned as nothing but medieval illusions and old wives' tales. Embarrassed museums all over Europe, wishing to be seen to be part of this enlightened 'Age of Reason', hurriedly threw out their cherished meteorite collections with the garbage as humiliating anachronisms from a superstitious past.

"Although the last two decades of the eighteenth century saw scientists such as Peter Pallas and Ernst Florens Chladni, risking ridicule by the scientific community through the serious investigation of meteorites, most scientists shared Isaac Newton's view that that no small objects could exist in the interplanetary space. An assumption that left no room for rocks or stones falling from the sky.

"Farmers who came to the Académie with samples of meteorites were laughingly shown to the door and denounced as superstitious ignorant peasants." See http://www.mysteriousnewzealand.com/featurearticles/featart_meteorites.html

You provided no evidence credible reports were ignored.

So how were the four incidents I cited of major damage to lighthouses and ships at heights of at least 20 meters above the water line explained?

An article you referenced sensationalized it, but other more scholarly accounts of the history, such as that provided by Robin, give a different impression.

The article Robin cited was written less than a year ago. Naturally, it downplayed the embarrassing history of oceanographers ignoring evidence that their computer models were wildly off-base.

Medical effects are similarly very much about human performance.

They are? Aspirin's ability to prevent heart attacks does not seem to me to have anything to do with human performance.

 

[fls]

"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!' The concept of meteorites was thus condemned as nothing but medieval illusions and old wives' tales. Embarrassed museums all over Europe, wishing to be seen to be part of this enlightened 'Age of Reason', hurriedly threw out their cherished meteorite collections with the garbage as humiliating anachronisms from a superstitious past.

"Although the last two decades of the eighteenth century saw scientists such as Peter Pallas and Ernst Florens Chladni, risking ridicule by the scientific community through the serious investigation of meteorites, most scientists shared Isaac Newton's view that that no small objects could exist in the interplanetary space. An assumption that left no room for rocks or stones falling from the sky.

Again you're assuming that a sensationalized account isn't misleading. And even if the claimed statements can be confirmed, they must have taken place before the events in the late 1700's, since Lavoisier died in 1794 and his part in a meteor investigation took place several decades earlier. And again I'm wondering how something which happened more than 200 years ago can be taken to reflect current practise when clearly there have been massive changes during that time period.

So how were the four incidents I cited of major damage to lighthouses and ships at heights of at least 20 meters above the water line explained?

I don't know.

The article Robin cited was written less than a year ago. Naturally, it downplayed the embarrassing history of oceanographers ignoring evidence that their computer models were wildly off-base.

Ah yes. Both the absence or presence of the thing is taken as evidence of the presence of the thing.

They are? Aspirin's ability to prevent heart attacks does not seem to me to have anything to do with human performance.

The effects of aspirin on disease varies considerably between humans.

Linda

 

[paximperium]

So does Rodney have anything to present to support his pet belief or is he still whining about how scientists are biased against his extraordinary claim that doesn't even have mediocre evidence to support it?

 

[Ersby]

"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!' The concept of meteorites was thus condemned as nothing but medieval illusions and old wives' tales. Embarrassed museums all over Europe, wishing to be seen to be part of this enlightened 'Age of Reason', hurriedly threw out their cherished meteorite collections with the garbage as humiliating anachronisms from a superstitious past.

"Although the last two decades of the eighteenth century saw scientists such as Peter Pallas and Ernst Florens Chladni, risking ridicule by the scientific community through the serious investigation of meteorites, most scientists shared Isaac Newton's view that that no small objects could exist in the interplanetary space. An assumption that left no room for rocks or stones falling from the sky.

"Farmers who came to the Académie with samples of meteorites were laughingly shown to the door and denounced as superstitious ignorant peasants." See http://www.mysteriousnewzealand.com/featurearticles/featart_meteorites.html

I started a thread about the myth of museums throwing out their collections a few weeks ago.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=182529

So how were the four incidents I cited of major damage to lighthouses and ships at heights of at least 20 meters above the water line explained?

Well, the one on Flannan Isle I know a bit about, since it's usually given as an example of a paranormal event! Discounting revenge by supernatural forces, the damage done is usually attributed to storm damage.

Which makes me wonder, what's the difference between damage done by a rogue wave, and damage done by a storm?

 

[zooterkin]

However, the scientific establishment was convinced

How long has this "scientific establishment" been in existence?

 

[Ersby]

The most spectacular examples of psi occur spontaneously, and are not replicable. For example, both Playboy magazine and Arthur C. Clarke's World of Strange Powers reported the case of David Booth. They each state that, in 1979, Booth had a series of recurring premonitory dreams for ten consecutive nights. He saw a plane take off from an airport, bank steeply and then crash. On 22 May 1979 he called the FAA at Greater Cincinnati International Airport, American Airlines, and a psychiatrist at University of Cincinnati. The authorities took him seriously -- the FAA had guessed from Booth's description that the plane was a DC-10 -- but they could do nothing about it. A DC-10 crash -- AA Flight 191 from Chicago to Los Angeles -- occurred three days after Booth's dreams, with a loss of life of 273. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki?title=Talk:American_Airlines_Flight_191 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191

Tell you what, after only a little bit of searching for details on this case, I found myself looking at pages accusing him of plagiarism, or describing dreams about a "dark planetary object" hitting the Earth in 2004. Before long, those pages started banging on about new world conspiracy theories, so I decided perhaps my time was better spent elsewhere.

 

[Rodney]

Tell you what, after only a little bit of searching for details on this case, I found myself looking at pages accusing him of plagiarism, or describing dreams about a "dark planetary object" hitting the Earth in 2004. Before long, those pages started banging on about new world conspiracy theories, so I decided perhaps my time was better spent elsewhere.

In terms of what Booth has said and done since May 1979, I would agree with you. However, I am in possession of the March 1980 Playboy, which documents Booth's dreams prior to the crash of AA Flight 191. Among many other things, the article states: "David Booth woke up crying on the night of May 24, 1979, in Cincinnati, Ohio. He'd just had the same bad dream for the tenth night in a row . . . in the dream he was the helpless witness of a plane crash . . . 'I look up in the air and there's an American Airlines jet, a great big thing, and the first thing that strikes me -- that always struck me -- was that it just wasn't making the noise it should' . . . He called the local office of American Airlines to tell them about his dreams, but no one was available to listen. Then he called the FAA at the Greater Cincinnati Airport and managed to get through to Ray Pinkerton, the assistant manager for airway facilities. Pinkerton listened and took notes that would later verify Booth's account of the dreams."

AA Flight 191 crashed after the left port wing mounted No. 1 engine—still attached to its pylon—separated from the aircraft and was carried over the top of the wing. The reason Playboy wrote an article about the crash was that its managing editor, Sheldon Wax, was among the victims.

 

[zooterkin]

In terms of what Booth has said and done since May 1979, I would agree with you. However, I am in possession of the March 1980 Playboy, which documents Booth's dreams prior to the crash of AA Flight 191.

It documents after the crash the dreams he claimed to have had before the crash. Is there any evidence from before the crash that he'd had this dream ten times in a row?

Even if he had, what do you think this proves? Why did he ring Cincinnati airport, not Chicago? How many people ring airports about bad dreams of planes crashing, only for there to be no crash?

Pinkerton listened and took notes that would later verify Booth's account of the dreams.

Do we have these notes?

 

[Ersby]

Amazingly, that issue of Playboy can be found on the internet. 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. And also raises this possibility that out of hundreds of reported dreams, one is bound to be correct.

 

[Robin]

The article Robin cited was written less than a year ago. Naturally, it downplayed the embarrassing history of oceanographers ignoring evidence that their computer models were wildly off-base.

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.

 

[Aepervius]

I'm just saying that the scientific consensus at a given time may be that the probability of something being true is so low as to not be worth pursuing, but eventually it will be shown to be true.

It was not a scientific consensus ! It was an ENGINEERING consensus that controlled heavier than air flight was impossible within current engineering (19th century).

Science at no point whatsoever pretended that heavier than air flight was impossible and BIRDS are an example of heavier than air controlled flight. Lord kelvin is simply quoted without understanding the context.

And indeed as soon as engineering progress was made, controlled heavier than flight was within grasp of the wright brother. But without the implosion engine, you can betcha we would still be looking at the birds with envy.

It is a case of FAIL of people misunderstanding the context within it was said.

 

[Aepervius]

Quite a bit, as a matter of fact:

"Isaac Newton and other savants in the 1600s were well aware of the myriad reports throughout history of stones falling from the sky,

SNIPPED.

Yeah. Sure. If you go far away enough in the past you will find such hiccup.

Now i challenge you to show such a hiccup where evidence were PRESENTED, but rejected, for , say, the last 30 years.

heck even for the infamous stomach ulcer story once evidence were presented, it became relatively quickly accepted...

 

[Aepervius]

That all changed in 1995 when a freak wave hit the Draupner North Sea oil platform. The oil rig swayed a little, suffering minor damage, but its onboard measuring equipment successfully recorded the wave height at nineteen meters." See http://www.damninteresting.com/monster-rogue-waves

So, the scientific establishment refused to accept eyewitness accounts and physical evidence, but instead relied on erroneous computer models until a smoking gun was found only 15 years ago.

I changed the emphasis in quote.

You misread. there was NO evidence of rogue vague until proper measurement were made.

Hearsay is NOT evidence. Even if you multiply hearsay by 50000.

And that is what most woo proponent can't seem to grasp.

"The plural of anecdote is not evidence"