Lord Kelvin [Archive]

gs21stc

19th April 2008, 07:12 AM

This smells like a "Scientist X was later proven wrong, which discounts all of science" style thread.

gs21stc: which paranormal phenomena were you referring to specifically?

I am just pondering about whether or not our current knowledge of science is complete at the present age. Will there be something that someone discovered out of the blue which no one expected? Like when Marie Curie discovered radioactivity and Albert Einstein discovered the particle nature of light?

How is science, as we know it today, progress? Are they going to advance slowly, building upon theories we have from the past 400 years or so?

Is there going to be a wild discovery which no one ever thought about? Have the age of unexpected discoveries came to an end?

I am not referring to any specific paranormal phenomena, just paranormal phenomena in general. I was thinking that could there be any surprising discovery in science coming out of the list of paranormal phenomena we see today?

P/S: I don't like the fact that some posters in the jref forum are so rude, insulting, and aggressive.

Acleron

19th April 2008, 07:38 AM

William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, President of the Royal Society from 1890-1895 (The Kelvin temperature scale was named after him) once said:

1) "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement."

2) "X-rays will prove to be a hoax."

Are all the paranormal phenomena we see today just hoaxes? Will we discover no more new science?

To a woo merchant, this is a frailty of science. However, in reality, it's the great strength of science. Scientists can be wrong but this is perfectly acceptable, other scientists can spot the problem and correct it. This process is the method by which scientific discovery works. Generally, scientists are open minded, they will be persuaded by convincing data. This is perhaps why all the great scientific discoveries in the last 200 years have been made by scientists.

Now one of these great scientific discoveries was the discovery of observer bias. Doesn't sound very important does it? But it pervades research in everything from medicine to astronomy. As part of the scientific method, it tells us whether we are actually observing a true effect or are deluding ourselves.

Contrast this with the paranormal woos. They start with a theory that does not match the facts and spend most of their time trying to justify why a particular inconvenient piece of data must be ignored. A lot of the paranormal is hoax and some is just self delusion by someone not prepared to follow the scientific method. Honestly ask yourself, after all these years why is there no concrete evidence to such woo topics as homeopathy, clairvoyance, telepathy etc? Why, when examined closely, do the facts match the major theories of accepted science rather than any other explanation?

cyborg

19th April 2008, 07:40 AM

I am just pondering about whether or not our current knowledge of science is complete at the present age.

No. It is impossible, by definition, to complete scientific knowledge.

Will there be something that someone discovered out of the blue which no one expected?

Uh, yes?

Like when Marie Curie discovered radioactivity and Albert Einstein discovered the particle nature of light?

Einstein did not "discover" the particle nature of light since that was already posited way before him. What he showed in his famous experiment was that energy had distinct quanta - leading us to quantum mechanics.

Are they going to advance slowly, building upon theories we have from the past 400 years or so?

We've been advancing exponentially.

Go find an electronics catalog from 8 years ago. Tell me if you would buy a single item in it for the price it is going at.

I was thinking that could there be any surprising discovery in science coming out of the list of paranormal phenomena we see today?

It seems highly unlikely.

lionking

19th April 2008, 07:42 AM

Well if you had have put it this way rather than quote-mining one of science's great men in such a way that it ridicules him you would have got more reasoned responses.

godless dave

19th April 2008, 07:42 AM

Are all the paranormal phenomena we see today just hoaxes?

Yes.

Will we discover no more new science?

We will definitely discover new science.

lionking

19th April 2008, 07:43 AM

Sorry post #8 was a response to post #5. Quick moving thread.

PixyMisa

19th April 2008, 07:55 AM

Three new threads within 18 posts. Troll-meter going off the scale.
Yeah. I think I want to apologise for my apology in the other thread.

gs21stc

19th April 2008, 03:02 PM

Three new threads within 18 posts. Troll-meter going off the scale.

What's wrong with starting a lot of new threads? What do you mean by Troll-meter?

gs21stc

19th April 2008, 03:14 PM

Einstein did not "discover" the particle nature of light since that was already posited way before him. What he showed in his famous experiment was that energy had distinct quanta - leading us to quantum mechanics.

OK, I guess we can say Einstein lead us to the discovery of quantum mechanics?

We've been advancing exponentially.

Go find an electronics catalog from 8 years ago. Tell me if you would buy a single item in it for the price it is going at.

I consider Electronics as technology, not science. The advance in electronics is mainly caused by intelligent people having great imagination and ideas. The science in Electronics is pretty much about Electromagnetism, a well established theory from centuries ago.

Science have discovered four fundamental forces in nature: Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong Nuclear Force, and Weak Nuclear Force.

Do you think that there will be any addition to that?

gs21stc

19th April 2008, 03:20 PM

Well if you had have put it this way rather than quote-mining one of science's great men in such a way that it ridicules him you would have got more reasoned responses.

That shows that a lot of people are assuming things too much. That is not good in science because as someone said earlier, you will be very prone to observer bias.

P/S: I am trying to get people to be good scientist here! ;)

Jackalgirl

19th April 2008, 03:31 PM

OK, I guess we can say Einstein lead us to the discovery of quantum mechanics?

That's another beauty of science -- discoveries build on one another. Einstein was a great link in the chain of discoveries that have led us toward quantum mechanics.

I consider Electronics as technology, not science. The advance in electronics is mainly caused by intelligent people having great imagination and ideas. The science in Electronics is pretty much about Electromagnetism, a well established theory from centuries ago.

Technology depends on science in many ways. First, it (usually) depends on a solid understanding of the workings of science. Engineers, for example, make use of formulae and calculations discovered by scientific exploration, and they need to understand how it all works in order to build a successful widget. Technological innovation, research & development would be impossible -- or, at least, would be extremely inefficient -- without the scientific process.

Electronics is about Electromagnetism, which is well-established, yes -- but look at the research going into ways to miniaturize electronics. Weird stuff starts to happen the smaller the components get, and much scientific R&D is going into ways to understand what's happening and how to get around it.

(I'm sorry if I sound like I'm talking down. I'm not. I'm not a scientist, so I'm just explaining this in the way that I understand it.)

The ultimate point that, I think, you are trying to make, is this: given that science is essentially incomplete, is it possible that psychic powers or other phenomena currently labeled as paranormal might actually be real, just insufficiently understood? Could the next great scientific discovery be, say, that people can control matter with their minds? (Or insert whatever one's pet psychic power is.)

The answer, of course, is: sure. But it depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about very vague and inconsistent phenomena like occasionally knowing that something bad is going to happen -- well, that could very well be some kind of precognition. However, there are other reasonable explanations (confirmation bias being one of them). In order to rule any of them out, you've got to be able to control for the other variables in a consistent fashion -- so if something's happening rarely and inconsistently, the best you can say is "there's no way to rule 'x' explanation out." But that does not constitute a proof of the explanation.

If, on the other hand, you're talking about things like a) talking to the dead, b) predicting the future, c) diagnosing someone's medical problems psychically, d) and any other "psychic phenomenon" that various well-known personages are using to transfer money from people to themselves, then I for one can confidently say "no". Because the effects are being claimed as consistent and reliable, and don't hold up to testing at all.

Science have discovered four fundamental forces in nature: Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong Nuclear Force, and Weak Nuclear Force.

Do you think that there will be any addition to that?

Absolutely. Science has lots to discover. Having those discovered those four fundamental forces, it's my understanding that we still don't really understand them all that well. We also don't understand how they're tied into quantum mechanics. There's all kinds of stuff going on out in space we're trying to figure out (some science-type please come and clarify: we are still trying to figure out the solidity of the string and dark matter theories, right?). There's shloads left to discover.

vexed

19th April 2008, 03:33 PM

P/S: I am trying to get people to be good scientist here! ;)

Odd since the question you presented to open this thread makes it seem like you don't understand very much about science.

Are all the paranormal phenomena we see today just hoaxes? Will we discover no more new science?

Jackalgirl

19th April 2008, 03:42 PM

gs21stc

19th April 2008, 05:54 PM

"P/S: I am trying to get people to be good scientist here!"

Odd since the question you presented to open this thread makes it seem like you don't understand very much about science.

"Are all the paranormal phenomena we see today just hoaxes? Will we discover no more new science?"

I was just trying to make my OP as beautiful as possible. That, if you like, is my attempt to rhyme on Lord Kelvin's statement.:)

Acleron

19th April 2008, 06:19 PM

I was just trying to make my OP as beautiful as possible. That, if you like, is my attempt to rhyme on Lord Kelvin's statement.:)

If you were just trying for some aesthetic quality we can now move on to another thread. If you wanted an answer to your question, you have received several. If you don't respond, you can be considered a hit and run troll and worthy of no further consideration. If you want to indulge in a meaningful discussion then please answer at least my questions. If you want to indulge yourself please do so, but privately.

devnull

19th April 2008, 06:59 PM

Dancing David

19th April 2008, 09:52 PM

When someone ponies up the evidence, then we can discuss what area of science it is or if there is a new area.

No evidence, no science.

Most people don't want to subject human beings to science, there is 'consciousness', 'awareness', 'mind', 'soul' and 'self'. Most people get real uncomfotable when you turn science onto those subjects. Especialy those who might have to find that there is no evidencefor a deeply held belief.

I still believe that i have free will, but the JREF discussions have made me consider that it is just as likely an illusion.

Gagglegnash

19th April 2008, 10:01 PM

Hi

... clip ...

Are all the paranormal phenomena we see today just hoaxes?

All the ones we HAVE so far seen are, yes.

Will we discover no more new science?

We most probably will, but we'll discover new sciences neither by deception nor by delusion.

gs21stc

20th April 2008, 03:57 AM

To a woo merchant, this is a frailty of science. However, in reality, it's the great strength of science. Scientists can be wrong but this is perfectly acceptable, other scientists can spot the problem and correct it. This process is the method by which scientific discovery works. Generally, scientists are open minded, they will be persuaded by convincing data. This is perhaps why all the great scientific discoveries in the last 200 years have been made by scientists.

Now one of these great scientific discoveries was the discovery of observer bias. Doesn't sound very important does it? But it pervades research in everything from medicine to astronomy. As part of the scientific method, it tells us whether we are actually observing a true effect or are deluding ourselves.

Contrast this with the paranormal woos. They start with a theory that does not match the facts and spend most of their time trying to justify why a particular inconvenient piece of data must be ignored. A lot of the paranormal is hoax and some is just self delusion by someone not prepared to follow the scientific method. Honestly ask yourself, after all these years why is there no concrete evidence to such woo topics as homeopathy, clairvoyance, telepathy etc? Why, when examined closely, do the facts match the major theories of accepted science rather than any other explanation?

Your main point in this post is about the difference between scientists and paranormal supporters. I am not interested in specifically that matter. Since you are desperate for me to reply to you, then I would say that I agree with you. The paranormal supporters do not currently have strong convincing evidence to support their claim. However, I will not rule out the possibility that they can do it in the future.

six7s

20th April 2008, 04:05 AM

I am trying to get people to be good scientist here! ;)

I am | Please describe your credentials (So far, all we know is that you (a) have an internet connection and (b) know how to start threads)
trying to get |Please describe your pedagogical model
people | Please describe your target market
to be good scientist | Please describe how you will evaluate your effectiveness
here | Please explain your choice of venue

drkitten

20th April 2008, 04:23 AM

To be honest Im not sure whether we *will* find some sort of amazing new discovery along the lines of x-rays.

Are you familiar with a book called "The End Of Science: Facing The Limits Of Knowledge In The Twilight Of The Scientific Age" by John Horgan? It purports to address exactly this question -- whether or not there's anything left to find. His argument : in some fields (biology, for example), we seem to have the basics generally right (we know about evolution and DNA, for example). In others, we have huge unanswered questions about the fundamentals and we have no assurance that we will ever answer them.

My response -- which I put into a review for the Journal of We'll Publish Anything By Desperate PostDocs, IIRC -- was that it was total bollocks. But you might find it interesting and more useful than I did.

drkitten

20th April 2008, 04:28 AM

However, I will not rule out the possibility that they can do it in the future.

What does "rule out" mean in this context? I can't "rule out" winning the lottery, but the odds are low enough that no sensible person treats it as an investment. (The corrolary, of course, is that there are people who consider "lottery tickets" to be a form of retirement planning. I submit that those people are not sensible.)

Research -- and its associates, like funding, faculty lines, lab space, and so forth -- are always in short supply and need to be carefully husbanded.

My university library is demonstrably inadquately funded, to the point where the accreditation agencies have expressed polite concern over it. I submit that every dollar you would like to spend on paranormal research would be better and more productively spent at my library. If you don't have enough money for the rent, you DEFINITELY shouldn't buy lottery tickets.

gs21stc

20th April 2008, 04:31 AM

Technology depends on science in many ways. First, it (usually) depends on a solid understanding of the workings of science. Engineers, for example, make use of formulae and calculations discovered by scientific exploration, and they need to understand how it all works in order to build a successful widget. Technological innovation, research & development would be impossible -- or, at least, would be extremely inefficient -- without the scientific process.

Electronics is about Electromagnetism, which is well-established, yes -- but look at the research going into ways to miniaturize electronics. Weird stuff starts to happen the smaller the components get, and much scientific R&D is going into ways to understand what's happening and how to get around it.

I am very particular about the distinction between science and technology. Science consists of theories and laws to describe nature, while technology is mainly the application of science in everyday life. I agree technology definitely uses the scientific process, but I don't like to label it as science. I know a lot of people like to mix them together, but I don't.

Absolutely. Science has lots to discover. Having those discovered those four fundamental forces, it's my understanding that we still don't really understand them all that well. We also don't understand how they're tied into quantum mechanics. There's all kinds of stuff going on out in space we're trying to figure out (some science-type please come and clarify: we are still trying to figure out the solidity of the string and dark matter theories, right?). There's shloads left to discover.

To say "absolutely" I think is a bit too optimistic. The four fundamental forces can describe a great deal of nature.

The Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces governs the microscopic world; inside the nucleus of an atom. The Electromagnetic Force governs the mesoscopic world; between inside and between atoms and molecules (plus a bit in the microscopic world as well). The Gravitational Force governs the macroscopic world; planets, stars, and galaxies.

The reason why they introduce Dark matter is because the motion of galaxies that we have observed will only make sense if there are huge amount of invisible matter residing in them. Dark matter will certainly have mass, and they will fall under the influence of the Gravitational Force.

Dark Energy arises from the scientists trying to explain the observed accelerated expansion of the universe. This Dark Energy has been said as anti-gravity, as it causes the galaxies to move away from each other. Maybe it has a relation to inflation theory, but I don't think this theory is proven yet. Most likely, when Dark Energy is finally understood, it will also fall in the realm of Gravity.

Before Marie Curie, everyone thought that the universe is completely described by Gravity and Electromagnetism. No one would ever imagine that there is anything inside the atom at all. Not even Lord Kelvin. He discredited Darwin's theory of evolution based on the argument that the Sun is too young for life to evolve on Earth. He was calculating the age of the Sun using the thermodynamics knowledge of the day. What he didn't know was that the Sun is a Nuclear Fusion reactor which was burning millions and millions years ago, long before the Earth was born.

The discovery of radioactivity made people aware that there is a new realm of nature, that nature is not completely explained by theories of their day; gravity and electromagnetism.

I was thinking that could there be a discovery such as this where we will be forced to change our worldview? If yes, are they going to come from the "so-called" paranormal phenomena?

Most people would be very inclined to think that there wouldn't be anymore radical new discoveries, like radioactivity. I think I am starting to take this view.

gs21stc

20th April 2008, 04:39 AM

I am | Please describe your credentials (So far, all we know is that you (a) have an internet connection and (b) know how to start threads)
trying to get |Please describe your pedagogical model
people | Please describe your target market
to be good scientist | Please describe how you will evaluate your effectiveness
here | Please explain your choice of venue

I was just annoyed by how people was so rude to me. That remark that I made was not meant to show what my intention in this thread is. I just want to have a good, intellectual discussion. :o

gs21stc

20th April 2008, 04:50 AM

What does "rule out" mean in this context? I can't "rule out" winning the lottery, but the odds are low enough that no sensible person treats it as an investment. (The corrolary, of course, is that there are people who consider "lottery tickets" to be a form of retirement planning. I submit that those people are not sensible.)

Research -- and its associates, like funding, faculty lines, lab space, and so forth -- are always in short supply and need to be carefully husbanded.

My university library is demonstrably inadquately funded, to the point where the accreditation agencies have expressed polite concern over it. I submit that every dollar you would like to spend on paranormal research would be better and more productively spent at my library. If you don't have enough money for the rent, you DEFINITELY shouldn't buy lottery tickets.

I am a person who have been exposed to quantum mechanics, where everything is about probability, not determinism. In quantum mechanics, pretty much everything can be express as its probability being in some co-called quantum mechanical "states" (in the Schrodinger version). The probability of a particle being in a particular state might be minimal, but you will still see instances where it will be in that state. Barrier penetration is a very good example of this. You can look this up if you don't know what this is.

I guess because of that, I have become a very optimistic person. Even when there is a very low probability, I will still not want to discredit it entirely. You might say that quantum mechanics doesn't apply to the macroscopic world, but its probabilistic concepts have certainly affected my world view.

gs21stc

20th April 2008, 04:56 AM

Your main point in this post is about the difference between scientists and paranormal supporters. I am not interested in specifically that matter. Since you are desperate for me to reply to you, then I would say that I agree with you. The paranormal supporters do not currently have strong convincing evidence to support their claim. However, I will not rule out the possibility that they can do it in the future.

Sorry, I think I've misunderstood you. Please ignore the "Since you are desperate" part. The reason why I only posted that "trying to rhyme
Lord Kelvin" comment and nothing else is because I don't have much time; I was rushing to work.

drkitten

20th April 2008, 05:06 AM

I am a person who have been exposed to quantum mechanics, where everything is about probability, not determinism.

Is this the time for me to drag up the "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" quotation?

In quantum mechanics, pretty much everything can be express as its probability being in some co-called quantum mechanical "states" (in the Schrodinger version). The probability of a particle being in a particular state might be minimal, but you will still see instances where it will be in that state.

No, I won't. Even in the QM framework, there are still events that are so unlikely that I simply won't see them.

And almost any macroscopically-observable event is almost completely isolated from the QM framework. We see electrons "tunnel" through barriers, but coffee cups simply don't teleport through walls. You can, if you like, try to calculate the probability that a coffee cup will teleport two meters to the left, but even without calculations I have enough information to tell you, informally, that it will be one divided by a number so large you don't know the English word for it.

I guess because of that, I have become a very optimistic person. Even when there is a very low probability, I will still not want to discredit it entirely.

That's unfortunate. It's just as bad an error to accept a scientific theory where it demonstrably doesn't apply as it is to reject it where it does. If penicillin is great for treating bacterial infections -- does that mean it should be used to treat sprained ankles?

gs21stc

20th April 2008, 05:27 AM

That's unfortunate. It's just as bad an error to accept a scientific theory where it demonstrably doesn't apply as it is to reject it where it does. If penicillin is great for treating bacterial infections -- does that mean it should be used to treat sprained ankles?

I guess that's my weakness. Advice noted. Thanks.

bruto

20th April 2008, 05:53 AM

I don't think the situation of Lord Kelvin is all that unusual. He was a great scientist in his own field in his own time, but he became an old fuddy-duddy and made what appear to be a number of foolish statements about things he shouldn't have. If you're interested in the way human beings behave, or in the personality and character of Lord Kelvin, it's interesting, but it says nothing about science in general, and little about Lord Kelvin's contribution to science. Lord Kelvin was, after all, never the Pope of science, and science or other scientists need not apologize for his howlers.

zooloo

20th April 2008, 06:20 AM

gs21stc

20th April 2008, 06:30 PM

Scientific research has not some to a stop and I don't think there is an apparent indicator it is likely to in the near future.

If would be interesting if it did though.

I would like to add that the question, is scientific research likely to come to a halt, seems very odd.

I don't think scientific research is going to come to a halt. I am just wondering whether or not there will be a new radical discovery that will change our view of the world. See post #27

fuelair

20th April 2008, 07:07 PM

I am just pondering about whether or not our current knowledge of science is complete at the present age. Will there be something that someone discovered out of the blue which no one expected? Like when Marie Curie discovered radioactivity and Albert Einstein discovered the particle nature of light?

How is science, as we know it today, progress? Are they going to advance slowly, building upon theories we have from the past 400 years or so?

Is there going to be a wild discovery which no one ever thought about? Have the age of unexpected discoveries came to an end?

I am not referring to any specific paranormal phenomena, just paranormal phenomena in general. I was thinking that could there be any surprising discovery in science coming out of the list of paranormal phenomena we see today?

P/S: I don't like the fact that some posters in the jref forum are so rude, insulting, and aggressive.
If you plan to stick around (please feel free to!), you had best get used to the idea that some posters will be rude, insulting and aggressive sometimes, some will be so a good amount of the time and a few will always be so. Some will rarely or never be. Second, if you spent a while lurking, you would have discovered there is a newbie pattern (a few actually) that we have seen before so many times that that WILL be the first response to : essentially, multiple threads, a "I don't believe this BUT...." style, and no attempt to give sites for us to go check (titles of items make us do pointless (usually) work). Usually, also, the person expects us to read or watch long strings of drivel at those sites rather than clearly stating a precis of the material, the authors/group associated with it and a coded version of the site we can just add proper punctuation to go to. No offense, you fit perfectly in that so far in your openings to the two threads I have seen of yours. If you are legit, please adjust style and you won't find responses so bad.

PS: Of course there is a gigantic amount left to learn about the universe/science/reality. But we can be pretty certain that it will not involve much of the topics we call paranormal if any - and it will fit somewhere within the science we know and are now discovering.

gs21stc

20th April 2008, 07:25 PM

No offense, you fit perfectly in that so far in your openings to the two threads I have seen of yours. If you are legit, please adjust style and you won't find responses so bad.

I was trying hard not to look like that by asking questions rather than saying that something or the other is proven. I always use words like "seems", "maybe" and "I think". I never once imply my intention to convert someone to my own view. I don't think I was confrontational at all in all my OPs. They are loaded with questions so that people will answer and/or ponder about it. Why some posters think that I am confrontational is beyond me. Maybe I should check out all the "newbie" posts you were talking about.

PixyMisa

20th April 2008, 07:44 PM

Dragoonster

20th April 2008, 07:47 PM

I don't think scientific research is going to come to a halt. I am just wondering whether or not there will be a new radical discovery that will change our view of the world. See post #27

I've wondered that too. I think physics may discover a fundamental agent that turns everything on its head. Since some of its fundamentals are forces, and things like GUT would mean a massive shift, it's plausible.

The most recent massive shift I think was plate tectonics, with old-schoolers holding to their paradigms until mid-last century. But that doesn't mean there won't be a massive shift in the future.

Regarding the "scientific curve", I'm interested in this too. I used to think it was exponential but it may instead be parabolic, or that one where the line starts to go horizontal. The progress graph might also be affected by population growth, as in more scientists on the subject as were before. And/or social growth, as in more people financially or culturally able to earn a living as scientists as before.

All in all I do think we're getting closer to Truth the more the species lives, so there is an end or diminishing return end in sight. My hunch is that there are some things we'll never be able to explain due to insufficiency of data, and/or a radical divide between the instrument (based on accepted principle) and a possible phenomena (based on things which cannot be parsed based on physical instruments).

For one example, I'm curious whether the philosophy of self would ever be explained (to the extent that the self believes it to be absolutely correct). Below all else we're subjective and that might limit our ability to explain the objective.

Dragoonster

20th April 2008, 07:57 PM

But you're not just asking questions. In each case, you have put forth a proposition, which has been promptly knocked down. If you just want to ask a question, just ask the question.

You're confusing the question with the proposition. Kelvin is merely an example, the question is whether his now-debunked givens will be repeated in now-accepted science. (with Kelvin merely as an example, discussion of Kelvin's real intellect/beliefs irrelevant).

And as merely an historical exercise, while science has (more or less) progressed since 3000 years ago, every new science has claimed inherency and that the old science is crap. That the old science is crap isn't the issue as much as whether the new science (including today) is inherently correct.

What is/would it be about the 21st century which makes it unique among all centuries in correct explanation? Just scientific progress finally reaching an event horizon? Is it the prediction of current science that they won't suffer the fate of past science?

gs21stc

20th April 2008, 07:58 PM

The problem is, in the three threads of yours that I have seen, your opening posts have appeared to be:

Supportive of homeopathy.
Supportive of panpsychism.
Supportive of the paranormal in general
Dismissive of science in general.In each case, once people have explained why your ideas are ridiculous, you have accepted this. Which is fine as far as it goes.

But you're not just asking questions. In each case, you have put forth a proposition, which has been promptly knocked down. If you just want to ask a question, just ask the question.

They appear to be supportive, but I also cast doubts on their validity, by not saying something like "It must be true!". I'm sorry if most people didn't see it that way. I guess I'm just not used to people on this forum.

As you can see, if you present an argument which I cannot refute, I will definitely agree with you. I have actually learned a lot from this forum thanks to their strong and convincing argument.

gs21stc

20th April 2008, 08:18 PM

gs21stc

20th April 2008, 08:28 PM

What is/would it be about the 21st century which makes it unique among all centuries in correct explanation? Just scientific progress finally reaching an event horizon? Is it the prediction of current science that they won't suffer the fate of past science?

Because science has progressed so much since its infancy, a lot of people believe that there really isn't anything radical left to be discovered in science.

I certainly hope that there will be one, the one that will give us the ability to perform intergalactic travel at ease. I am a very adventurous person, and would really like to see what's out there!:p

Rolfe

21st April 2008, 09:55 AM

Let me also explain why some people here might seem rude and short. It's just that every couple of weeks, we get a newcomer in here who breathlessly posts that because Great Minds of Science have Gotten it Wrong, Psychic Powers (or God) absolutely can exist! It's just that Modern Science refuses to explore them because of its Arrogance! The Next Great Discovery could be God (or Telepathy, or Telekinesis, or whatever)! You Skeptics are (takes a deep breath, with wide wide eyes) actually terribly close[d]-minded! It's also very common for people to try to sneak this whole thing "under the radar" by trying to get the membership here to agree with an initial statement ("Great minds can get it wrong!") so that they can triumphantly spring the trap ("You're all close-minded!").

So please forgive the overreaction. Imagine that you're working at a technical help desk, and someone calls in who's having problems connecting to the Internet because he doesn't have his ethernet plugged in and this is the 50,000th person you've talked to with exactly the same problem. In fact, it happens so frequently that you've got that very problem addressed on the troubleshooting FAQ that's freely available to customers, but he didn't check it out and so here you are. It's really really hard, in situations like this, to understand that to this guy, this is the first time he's ever had a problem with this -- for him it's brand-spanking new. And it's really hard to keep from being impatient.

Check out the threads in this section. You'll see that it's all happened fairly frequently. Welcome to the Forum, btw! : )

This is quite a good analogy. However, it fails in one important respect.

If you are working on a help desk and get the same problem time and time again, you are probably still of the opinion that each person is genuine, because each person has interacted in a way which reinforces this supposition. Therefore, although person #50,000 may try your patience, you probably have no reason to snap at him for stringing you along.

However, imagine if most of the previous 49,999 callers had fed you the same story, but had nearly all turned out to be stringing you a line! They weren't genuinely asking you for help at all. Instead they were convinced that the Internet is a magic phenomenon, and that no physical connection should be necessary in order to get it to work. Their main aim in life was to get you to admit this. These people all played you along for a while, before departing in the huff telling you that you were closed-minded, and they retained their original deeply-held belief.

Not only that, on many occasions you had confronted these people with your opnion that they were stringing you along in that way, only to have them deny it hotly and insist that they were indeed genuine enquirers. Only later it transpired that they were all magical thinkers after all.

It just so happens that your approach to this forum has been exactly like these 49,999 others. We've had countless true believers start threads saying that they were in fact sceptics but this looks intriguing, what do you think? Mostly presenting stuff we've already discussed to death in other threads. Then when we present the refutations Just One More Time they become increasingly angry and defensive and we're told that they know it's true [or it works] because [insert personal anecdote here]. Where alternative medical claims are concerned it often turns out that these people are actually practitioners of this particular brand of quackery and are making a nice little income from it.

So if in fact you're not in this category, please accept my apologies along with others'. However, I've said that before too, only to discover a few weeks later that I was talking to a practising homoeopath.

You see our dilemma?

Rolfe.

shadron

21st April 2008, 09:45 PM

I consider Electronics as technology, not science. The advance in electronics is mainly caused by intelligent people having great imagination and ideas. The science in Electronics is pretty much about Electromagnetism, a well established theory from centuries ago.

Sometimes it is difficult to determine where the science leaves off and the engineering begins. In particular, perhaps, where the applied science leaves off and the theoretical engineering begins, or where...

But you get my drift. Magnetism has been "a well established theory from centuries ago", I suppose; at least, the behavior of compasses was known, if not the reasons why it worked. Electricity somewhat less; lets say, perhaps 300 years on the generous side, since the time of Volta. Maxwell didn't supply a theoretical basis that tied them together until 1865. In your estimation, then, no one has done any science in electromechanics since 1865, mainly because everything invented beyond then is useful to someone. The vacuum tube, the transistor, radar, the use of quantum effects in ICs, Shannon's information science - all "just" technology.

I think you've allowed yourself to be blinded by your prejudices.

Kelvin was only one of many scientists of his day who were convinced that physics, at least, had discovered all there was to discover. The rest of that story we all know. No one had any idea how anything more basic than stratigraphy could be learned about the earth; that, too, has seen some unexpected progress. Any thought that we are at the end of all great discoveries in science would seem to be, from a study of history, to be a most foolish position.

PixyMisa

22nd April 2008, 05:25 AM

You're confusing the question with the proposition. Kelvin is merely an example, the question is whether his now-debunked givens will be repeated in now-accepted science. (with Kelvin merely as an example, discussion of Kelvin's real intellect/beliefs irrelevant).
If discussion of Kelvin is irrelevant, why bring him up in the first place?

And as merely an historical exercise, while science has (more or less) progressed since 3000 years ago, every new science has claimed inherency and that the old science is crap.
Nope.

That the old science is crap isn't the issue as much as whether the new science (including today) is inherently correct.
The old science isn't crap, and current science isn't inherently correct. No-one says either of those things - no-one who understands science, anyway. That's simply not how science works.

What is/would it be about the 21st century which makes it unique among all centuries in correct explanation?
We know more.

Just scientific progress finally reaching an event horizon?
I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, and I don't think you know either.

Is it the prediction of current science that they won't suffer the fate of past science?
Past science? Like Newton and Galileo and Darwin and Maxwell and Boyle and Pasteur? That sort of fate?

fuelair

22nd April 2008, 05:55 AM

Because science has progressed so much since its infancy, a lot of people believe that there really isn't anything radical left to be discovered in science.

I certainly hope that there will be one, the one that will give us the ability to perform intergalactic travel at ease. I am a very adventurous person, and would really like to see what's out there!:pI will buy your "a lot of people" point - because an appallingly large number of people know functionally nothing of science. However, most people who do know even a reasonable amount of science know that the possibilities for advancement are huge - in Biology/Ecology alone, all we need is one other planet located and we are in heavy new stuff mode.:)

bruto

22nd April 2008, 06:06 AM

You're confusing the question with the proposition. Kelvin is merely an example, the question is whether his now-debunked givens will be repeated in now-accepted science. (with Kelvin merely as an example, discussion of Kelvin's real intellect/beliefs irrelevant).

And as merely an historical exercise, while science has (more or less) progressed since 3000 years ago, every new science has claimed inherency and that the old science is crap. That the old science is crap isn't the issue as much as whether the new science (including today) is inherently correct.

What is/would it be about the 21st century which makes it unique among all centuries in correct explanation? Just scientific progress finally reaching an event horizon? Is it the prediction of current science that they won't suffer the fate of past science?

I think you're confusing individual scientists' failure of imagination with "science" itself. What do Kelvin's statements, or similar ones by others, actually add up to? Science marches on, and the people actually doing it keep on doing it. If today's scientists could predict what tomorrows science is going to be, they'd be tomorrow's scientists. Knowing that this is so, and quessing in what way it will be so are two very different things.

You cannot bring up Kelvin as an example, and then declare that it's irrelevant to point out that he was an old man become a bureaucratic functionary, speaking about matters that were not part of his field of study. So he was out of touch, and missed the boat. Big deal. Lord Kelvin should be an object lesson in humility, perhaps, but if he is relevant at all as an example, it's relevant to speak of what he is an example of.

Gr8wight

22nd April 2008, 07:18 AM

I don't like the fact that some posters in the jref forum are so rude, insulting, and aggressive.

Newsflash! Web Newbie Dismayed By Lack Of Manners On Internet Forum. Pictures At Eleven.

Pup

23rd April 2008, 09:25 AM

Are all the paranormal phenomena we see today just hoaxes? Will we discover no more new science?

Just occurred to me, how many scientific discoveries in the past were due to explaining the "paranormal phenomena" of their day? I can't think of any. I probably know more about the 19th century U.S. than other times and places, and I'm thinking of spirit rapping, ouija boards, fairies, various voodoo-related beliefs brought here by African Americans, speaking in tongues, dowsing, superstitions for good or bad luck like breaking a mirror or what to do when you spill salt, divining the future through things like apple peals and tea leaves...

Nope, no "new science" from them. At most, they might have spurred more investigation of how the human mind can fool itself, or psychosomatic conditions.

So what are examples of scientific discoveries born from previous "paranormal" phenomena?

Rolfe

23rd April 2008, 04:36 PM

Well, this thread did me one service. The other night on University Challenge Jeremy Paxman read out a string of pretty shortsighted and stupid assertions, including the above, and asked the teams who had said that. My immediate reply of "Lord Kelvin!" impressed the entire living room.

Rolfe.

ravdin

23rd April 2008, 04:56 PM

Because science has progressed so much since its infancy, a lot of people believe that there really isn't anything radical left to be discovered in science.

I doubt very much that any living scientists would assert that there "isn't anything radical left to be discovered in science." You'd even be very hard pressed to find a scientist who wouldn't be massively disappointed to find out that this was true.

We've learned a lot through science, but I think one of the more important lessons is that the more we find out, the more questions we have.

Rodney

23rd April 2008, 05:43 PM

. . . At most, they might have spurred more investigation of how the human mind can fool itself, or psychosomatic conditions.
Do you think all 19th Century paranormal phenomena were debunked? How about the Watseka Wonder (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110565)?

Pup

23rd April 2008, 06:11 PM

Do you think all 19th Century paranormal phenomena were debunked? How about the Watseka Wonder (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110565)?

Oh no. Not my point at all. There are thousands of accounts of supposedly paranormal phenomenon from all eras that we can never actually debunk, because there's simply not enough data, unless they can be replicated.

What I mean is, the initial post seemed to imply that current "paranormal" phenomena may turn out to be real (not hoaxes) and therefore lead to new scientific discoveries. Like, hypothetically, the Watseka Wonder leading to the discovery of a new kind of contagious disease that transfers memories from its former host to its current host.

Yet I can't think of any examples where common paranormal myths of some era have been proven real and led to scientific advances. It doesn't seem to be the way science typically advances, though there's got to be some examples from some era.

Cuddles

24th April 2008, 05:06 AM

Yet I can't think of any examples where common paranormal myths of some era have been proven real and led to scientific advances. It doesn't seem to be the way science typically advances, though there's got to be some examples from some era.

It's interesting really. You'd expect at least a few paranormal myths to have been based on something real, or at least to just hit on something by accident. I can't think of any examples either.

To be honest Im not sure whether we *will* find some sort of amazing new discovery along the lines of x-rays.

We pretty much understand the fundamentals of our physical world these days. Ofcourse, scientists will discover amazing new stuff at a sub-molecular level, but nothing (I dont think) that directly affects us.

It's always very tempting to think this way. We understand the world so much better than we did just a few decades ago, and it seems almost inconceivable that we could have missed anything as fundamental and obvious as x-rays. However, this is exactly what people have thought in the past and, as is the point of this very thread, statements to this effect have been made time and again by people deeply involved in science. At one point it seemed inconceivable that x-rays themselves could have existed. It seemed inconceivable that anything smaller than an atom could exist. It seemed inconceivable that the universe could have a speed limit. It seemed inconceivable that particles could pass through to holes at once and interfere with themselves. Yet every one of these has turned out not only to be true, but has also revolutionised our understanding of the world. The usual answer here is "Yes, but we know more than they did.", which is of course true, but completely misses the point.

That said, I'd tend to agree with your "but nothing that directly affects us". Science, especially physics, deals with a huge range of scales. Most of the things that happen on a human scale have been fairly well understood for a long time. Things on bigger and smaller scales that still effect us - up to planetary and down to atomic - aren't understood as well, but we can still see pretty much everything that happens and it's just a matter of finding out exactly how it works. The only areas left for really revolutionary discoveries are even bigger and even smaller, on the galatic and particle scales, and there really isn't anything there that will affect us. It might be nice to know how galaxies formed or what quarks are made of, but it won't make the same kind of changes to human society that things like the discovery of iron or radio waves did.

Rodney

24th April 2008, 10:06 AM

It's interesting really. You'd expect at least a few paranormal myths to have been based on something real, or at least to just hit on something by accident. I can't think of any examples either.
How about Quetzalcoatl? See http://www.rjames.com/Toltec/myth2.htm

Pup

24th April 2008, 03:08 PM

How about Quetzalcoatl? See http://www.rjames.com/Toltec/myth2.htm

That reminds me of the myth-reality situation with the Trojan War.

But what's the paranormal part? Did I miss it? It seems the facts turned out to be the usual history of rulers and wars, and not paranormal creatures or powers.

Actually, thinking about snakes with wings, I was wondering about the field of cryptozoology. Giant squids, maybe? Though they didn't turn out to be paranormal in the sense of needing new science to explain them.

Now bats with ultrasonic echolocation... there'd be a good example if there was a long-standing myth about bats having a sixth sense to "see" invisible obstacles. Ironically, in the late 18th cenutry, after using the scientific method, Spallanzani (http://books.google.com/books?id=5AkPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA524&dq=bats+spallanzani+date:0-1900&lr=&as_brr=0&output=html) proposed bats had a sixth sense when he couldn't figure out through experimentation how they navigated otherwise, but I don't know if the sixth sense myth preceded his experiments.

Tubbythin

24th April 2008, 05:07 PM

I am just pondering about whether or not our current knowledge of science is complete at the present age. Will there be something that someone discovered out of the blue which no one expected? Like when Marie Curie discovered radioactivity

It was Becquerel that discovered radioactivity. Marie Curie (with Pierre) discovered radium and polonium. They did all share the same Nobel prize though (1903 according to Wiki).

Rodney

24th April 2008, 07:01 PM

But what's the paranormal part? Did I miss it? It seems the facts turned out to be the usual history of rulers and wars, and not paranormal creatures or powers.
I was responding to Cuddles' point that "You'd expect at least a few paranormal myths to have been based on something real." According to Wikipedia: "Quetzalcoatl is an Aztec sky and creator god." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatl

Cuddles

25th April 2008, 03:15 AM

bruto

25th April 2008, 07:21 AM

I was responding to Cuddles' point that "You'd expect at least a few paranormal myths to have been based on something real." According to Wikipedia: "Quetzalcoatl is an Aztec sky and creator god." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuetzalcoatlI don't get the relevance of this. Yes, some legends, such as Troy and Quetzalcoatl (and, if some accounts are to be believed, various of the Bible stories) have turned out to have some historical basis, but when that has been discovered, it has also been discovered that there was nothing paranormal about them. But in a way, doesn't this work against your own assertions? The very part of these legends that turned out not to have any substance was the paranormal part. There were no lost secrets or new revelations. Just a confirmation that real events often become the stuff of legend. If you frost an angel cake with dog poop, discovering the cake inside doesn't make the frosting any tastier.

Rodney

25th April 2008, 11:05 AM

And you're claiming that the Aztec gods are real? Even for you that's rather odd.
Again, I'm responding to your assertion: "You'd expect at least a few paranormal myths to have been based on something real." If you were a believer in the paranormal, I could interpret your sentence to mean something along the lines of: "Since the paranormal has been proven, I'm surprised that there is no hard evidence that there were paranormal events in ancient times." However, since you don't believe in the paranormal, the only way I can interpret your sentence is along the lines of: "There is no proof of the paranormal, but I'm surprised that not even one paranormal myth has any factual basis -- all such myths seem to have been made up out of whole cloth by primitive people."

Jekyll

25th April 2008, 01:08 PM

Again, I'm responding to your assertion: "You'd expect at least a few paranormal myths to have been based on something real." If you were a believer in the paranormal, I could interpret your sentence to mean something along the lines of: "Since the paranormal has been proven, I'm surprised that there is no hard evidence that there were paranormal events in ancient times." However, since you don't believe in the paranormal, the only way I can interpret your sentence is along the lines of: "There is no proof of the paranormal, but I'm surprised that not even one paranormal myth has any factual basis -- all such myths seem to have been made up out of whole cloth by primitive people."

So which bit of the stories about a winged, feathered serpent that ate men is true?

blutoski

25th April 2008, 03:32 PM

I think one of the take-away learnings from these Kelvin-like statements is that it pays to pick words.

"Given the information that I have examined, right now, I believe this is a very (un)likely explanation for the observations in question."

Cuddles

28th April 2008, 04:04 AM

However, since you don't believe in the paranormal, the only way I can interpret your sentence is along the lines of: "There is no proof of the paranormal, but I'm surprised that not even one paranormal myth has any factual basis -- all such myths seem to have been made up out of whole cloth by primitive people."

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. What I'm confused about is, as Jekyll has also said, exactly why you'd respond to this with a story about a winged, feathered, man-eating snake god.

MarkCorrigan

28th April 2008, 03:11 PM

So which bit of the stories about a winged, feathered serpent that ate men is true?

Oh, please, let me answer!

None.

However (and this is a pretty tentative however) it has been theorised that the passing of the serpent over the sky as a ball of fire (or something similar, can't remember the exact description from the myths) might have been the passing of a comet. That a comet may have passed over and been interpreted as a god might have been true, I'm not sure about cosmological activities of that time.

Rodney

28th April 2008, 04:28 PM

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. What I'm confused about is, as Jekyll has also said, exactly why you'd respond to this with a story about a winged, feathered, man-eating snake god.
Consistent with what MarkCorrigan just posted, paranormal myths often have a basis in reality.

cyborg

28th April 2008, 05:00 PM

Consistent with what MarkCorrigan just posted, paranormal myths often have a basis in reality.

You mean, where they aren't paranormal at all?

Rodney

28th April 2008, 05:21 PM

You mean, where they aren't paranormal at all?
The point is that, whether paranormal myths are based on genuinely paranormal events or not, they aren't made up out of whole cloth.

bruto

28th April 2008, 09:47 PM

The point is that, whether paranormal myths are based on genuinely paranormal events or not, they aren't made up out of whole cloth.But the way you put that suggests that there are any myths "based on genuinely paranormal events" which are not made up. But that's now what the examples show. So far all we've seen are non paranormal events turned into paranormal legends. I still can't see why you think that this should in any way substantiate your idea that it ever works the other way around.

Lies often have a basis in truth too, but finding the truth doesn't validate the lie.

Cuddles

29th April 2008, 04:09 AM

Consistent with what MarkCorrigan just posted, paranormal myths often have a basis in reality.

Except that what MarkCorrigan said has nothing to do with the origin of any paranormal myth. Sure, a comet may have been interpreted as the god revealing itself or whatever, but a comet certainly didn't give rise to the myth of a feathered, winged, man-eating, serpent god. No-one will argue that real events get shoe-horned into paranormal myths, but I still can't think of any that were definitely based on real events.

I have to admit that I am moving the goalposts slightly here by adding the word "definitely". For example, something like the Jesus story could be based on a real person and real events. However, there is plenty of debate over whether he actually existed, and even if he did, it is quite likely that the actual myths were just made up and Jesus was a convenient person to attach them to.

gs21stc

5th May 2008, 07:30 PM

gs21stc

5th May 2008, 07:37 PM

The only new radical discovery in science I think should emerge is the ability to perfrom intergalactic transit in just a fraction of a human lifetime. That will truly be a discovery that will affect us. We will suddenly have the whole Universe to explore, not just the Earth and the Solar System.

gs21stc

5th May 2008, 07:48 PM

So what are examples of scientific discoveries born from previous "paranormal" phenomena?

That's true. I also couldn't think of one, unless you consider X-rays or Electricty and Magnetism as a "paranormal" phenomena.

The proponents of the paranormal always state that science has yet to investigate and understand the so-called "paranormal" phenomena, but it does not mean that they are not real.

However, if you think about it, science has definitely investigated them and found them to be nothing. If they are indeed real, then they cannot be measured by the scientific instruments of today.

The question now is, would there be such a thing? That it is real but cannot be measured by any current physical devices?

Alkatran

5th May 2008, 08:40 PM

Rodney

6th May 2008, 06:01 AM

Cuddles

6th May 2008, 07:03 AM

Here's a list of things, some of which definitely used to be considered paranormal:

http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=58374

They aren't on the level of astrology or anything like that, more along the lines of rogue waves. Hard to observe.

Which ones have ever been considered paranormal? The only one that comes close is "Holistic and Alternative Medical Practices", and depending on what they actually mean by that, it's either not paranormal or considered paranormal for very good reasons.

Bear in mind that, until 1995, most oceanographers dismissed accounts of rogue waves as gross exaggerations. "Their mathematical models predicted that giant waves were statistical improbabilities that should arise once every 10,000 years or so." See http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59768&highlight=rogue+waves

But no-one ever claimed they were paranormal.

Rodney

6th May 2008, 07:33 AM

But no-one ever claimed they were paranormal.
The relevance here is, that just as most scientists have dismissed the anecdotal evidence for the paranormal, so, too, did they used to dismiss the anecdotal evidence for rogue waves.

Jekyll

6th May 2008, 07:37 AM

The point is that, whether paranormal myths are based on genuinely paranormal events or not, they aren't made up out of whole cloth.

Except for the bits about the winged, feathered, man eating snakes which, I hope we all agree, were made out of whole cloth.

In fact the only thing which seems to even have the possibility of being true is the idea that, "there was once something bright that seemed to move through the sky."

It's not really a record to be proud of.

Rodney

6th May 2008, 08:12 AM

Except for the bits about the winged, feathered, man eating snakes which, I hope we all agree, were made out of whole cloth.

In fact the only thing which seems to even have the possibility of being true is the idea that, "there was once something bright that seemed to move through the sky."

It's not really a record to be proud of.
How can you be so sure that myths about strange creatures have no basis in fact? While stories may have been exaggerated or embellished, even today some cryptozoologists believe that there are some pretty strange critters flying or roaming about. See http://members.aol.com/okapionza/books/flying_toads.html

Mojo

6th May 2008, 08:44 AM

The relevance here is, that just as most scientists have dismissed the anecdotal evidence for the paranormal, so, too, did they used to dismiss the anecdotal evidence for rogue waves.

Until good evidence of the frequency of rogue waves was presented.

So off you go and get some good evidence for the paranormal, rather than attempting to rely on Cayce's witterings.

bruto

6th May 2008, 09:29 AM

How can you be so sure that myths about strange creatures have no basis in fact? While stories may have been exaggerated or embellished, even today some cryptozoologists believe that there are some pretty strange critters flying or roaming about. See http://members.aol.com/okapionza/books/flying_toads.htmlOf course in some sense we can't be sure the paranormal part of those myths has no basis in fact, but we have a great deal more evidence for the basic tendency of people to make mistakes, misattribute causes for the unknown, exaggerate, embellish and simply to lie. Why should we cling to the least likely explanation?

Rodney

6th May 2008, 10:47 AM

Until good evidence of the frequency of rogue waves was presented.
No, the evidence was there, it's just that it was anecdotal and not believed by most oceanographers:

"Over the decades, skeptical oceanographers have doubted their [rogue waves] existence and tended to lump them together with sightings of mermaids and sea monsters . . . Over the centuries, many accounts have told of monster waves that battered and sank ships. In 1933 in the North Pacific, the Navy oiler Ramapo encountered a huge wave. The crew, calm enough to triangulate from the ship’s superstructure, estimated its height at 112 feet . . . In 1966, the Italian cruise ship Michelangelo was steaming toward New York when a giant wave tore a hole in its superstructure, smashed heavy glass 80 feet above the waterline, and killed a crewman and two passengers. In 1978, the München, a German barge carrier, sank in the Atlantic. Surviving bits of twisted wreckage suggested that it surrendered to a wave of great force." See http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/11/science/11wave.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&oref=slogin

So off you go and get some good evidence for the paranormal, rather than attempting to rely on Cayce's witterings.
There's more to the paranormal than just Cayce, which you would know if you read my "witterings."

Rodney

6th May 2008, 10:50 AM

Of course in some sense we can't be sure the paranormal part of those myths has no basis in fact, but we have a great deal more evidence for the basic tendency of people to make mistakes, misattribute causes for the unknown, exaggerate, embellish and simply to lie. Why should we cling to the least likely explanation?
You should at least try to account for how these myths originated.

Mojo

6th May 2008, 04:58 PM

No, the evidence was there, it's just that it was anecdotal and not believed by most oceanographers:

You've missed the word "good".

Rodney

6th May 2008, 06:08 PM

You've missed the word "good".
Do you find all anecdotal evidence to be less than good?

bruto

6th May 2008, 06:16 PM

You should at least try to account for how these myths originated.Why? People make up stories about what they don't understand. If no evidence of truthfulness other than the myth itself has appeared since then, why should anyone bother?

Should we be doing archeological digs for the forge of Hephaestus too?

Cuddles

7th May 2008, 03:10 AM

Do you find all anecdotal evidence to be less than good?

Yes, of course. That's why it's qualified with "anecdotal" rather than just calling it evidence. Anecdotes can suggest an area that might be interesting to study, but they are completely useless as actual evidence.

Rodney

7th May 2008, 06:36 AM

Yes, of course. That's why it's qualified with "anecdotal" rather than just calling it evidence. Anecdotes can suggest an area that might be interesting to study, but they are completely useless as actual evidence.
So the following accounts/investigations were all completely useless as actual evidence of rogue waves? --

"In 1933 in the North Pacific, the Navy oiler Ramapo encountered a huge wave. The crew, calm enough to triangulate from the ship’s superstructure, estimated its height at 112 feet . . . In 1966, the Italian cruise ship Michelangelo was steaming toward New York when a giant wave tore a hole in its superstructure, smashed heavy glass 80 feet above the waterline, and killed a crewman and two passengers. In 1978, the München, a German barge carrier, sank in the Atlantic. Surviving bits of twisted wreckage suggested that it surrendered to a wave of great force."

TjW

7th May 2008, 07:53 AM

The first two examples have actual data. The third does not.

Anecdotally, many, many people have lost valuable jewelery down drains. Do you therefore believe that searching through the solid waste at the wastewater treatment plant would be a good use of your time?

Rodney

7th May 2008, 10:47 AM

The first two examples have actual data. The third does not.
That's an interesting take because I would consider the first example to be the most anecdotal, assuming that the only evidence in that case was the crew's contention that they had triangulated the wave's height as 112 feet. In the third example, on the other hand, there was wreckage to be examined. So, how are you defining "anecdotal evidence"?

Anecdotally, many, many people have lost valuable jewelery down drains. Do you therefore believe that searching through the solid waste at the wastewater treatment plant would be a good use of your time?
Non sequitur. Even if I dropped a piece of valuable jewelery down the drain, I don't believe it would be worthwhile to search through the solid waste at the wastewater treatment plant -- unless we were talking about something of staggering value, such as the Hope Diamond (which, through an unfortunate twist of fate, is not in my possession at the moment).

bruto

7th May 2008, 09:01 PM

That's an interesting take because I would consider the first example to be the most anecdotal, assuming that the only evidence in that case was the crew's contention that they had triangulated the wave's height as 112 feet. In the third example, on the other hand, there was wreckage to be examined. So, how are you defining "anecdotal evidence"?

The fact that there was wreckage to be examined means that there was very good evidence of the wreckage, of course, but that is not the same as evidence of a wave.

In the first example, you can argue about the accuracy of the measurement, but the wave was observed and a commonly used technique of measurement was applied to it. In the second example, the wave was observed and the damage it caused was documented. In the third example, damage was found, and a wave inferred. No wave was observed. Do you really not see a difference there?

Rodney

8th May 2008, 07:26 AM

The fact that there was wreckage to be examined means that there was very good evidence of the wreckage, of course, but that is not the same as evidence of a wave.

In the first example, you can argue about the accuracy of the measurement, but the wave was observed and a commonly used technique of measurement was applied to it. In the second example, the wave was observed and the damage it caused was documented. In the third example, damage was found, and a wave inferred. No wave was observed. Do you really not see a difference there?
I see differences in all three examples: In the first example, the Ramapo's crew -- presumably a relatively small one since this was an oil tanker and not a passenger ship -- says that it triangulated a wave of about 112 feet, but they could have made up the story or greatly exaggerated it because there apparently was no loss of life or major damage to the ship. In the second example, there was major damage, three deaths, and very likely numerous eyewitness accounts from both the crew and passengers. In the third example, there was major damage and the loss of the entire crew, but no eyewitness accounts. While the latter is a negative, careful examination of the damage could establish with a high degree of certainty that a giant wave was responsible.

So, to me, the second example is the most evidential and the first example is the least evidential. However, this is not to say that I disbelieve the Ramapo crew's account. I think that evidence is a continuum and can't be separated into two boxes, one of them labeled "valuable non-anecdotal evidence" and the other labeled "worthless anecdotal evidence." All three of the above examples should have been taken seriously by oceanographers, but were not by most, until the evidence of rogue waves became unchallengeable.

drkitten

8th May 2008, 11:44 AM

In the third example, there was major damage and the loss of the entire crew, but no eyewitness accounts. While the latter is a negative, careful examination of the damage could establish with a high degree of certainty that a giant wave was responsible.

Really?

How?

In case you weren't aware, analyzing wreckage to determine the cause of destruction is among the most difficult tasks engineers are called upon to do, and I don't think I've ever seen a case, professionally speaking, where analysis of the wreckage alone was able to determine with confidence (let alone "with a high degree of certainty") that a single named cause was responsible.

The simple fact is that none of the three cases you cite are particularly valuable; eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, physical evidence is notorously ambiguous, and the simple rarity of such cases prevents a cautious investigator from giving much credence to any of them.

blutoski

8th May 2008, 02:05 PM

Are all the paranormal phenomena we see today just hoaxes? Will we discover no more new science?

These are totally different questions.

1. Are all the paranormal phenomena we see today just hoaxes? Not enough information. I would say that in my opinion only a minority are deliberate hoaxes. The rest are wishful thinking.

2. Will we discover no new science? Of course we will. But this has nothing to do with paranormal claims, and cannot be used to justify long discredited theories.

Regarding #2 - I always find it strange that people consider an idea that was discredited decades or centuries ago to be of the same value as a fresh new scientific explanation that hasn't gone through testing yet. In other words: failed theories are not protosciences.

blutoski

8th May 2008, 02:10 PM

Also regardnig question #2... Skeptic Magazine examined the prospect of diminishing returns in science in an issue over a decade ago:

[Skeptic Magazine, Volume 4, No 3 (http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/archives/vol04n03.html)]:
* Article: The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age
* Article: Dreams of the End of Science: It is the End of the Beginning for Science, Not the Beginning of the End
* Column: The Question All Skeptics are Asking: What Will Tomorrow Bring?

Rodney

8th May 2008, 05:27 PM

Really?

How?

In case you weren't aware, analyzing wreckage to determine the cause of destruction is among the most difficult tasks engineers are called upon to do, and I don't think I've ever seen a case, professionally speaking, where analysis of the wreckage alone was able to determine with confidence (let alone "with a high degree of certainty") that a single named cause was responsible.
Okay, I may have overstated things, but as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_M%C3%BCnchen notes:

"As the science behind rogue waves began to be explored and more fully understood, it was accepted that not only did they exist, but that it was possible that they could occur in the deep ocean, such as in the North Atlantic. Investigators later returned to the question of the München and considered the possibility that she had encountered one in the storm that night. Whilst ploughing through the storm on the night of 12 December, she was suddenly faced with a wall of water, between 80 to 100 feet high, looming out of the dark. The München would have plunged into the trough of the huge wave, and before she could rise out of it, it collapsed onto her, breaking across her bow and superstructure, tearing the starboard lifeboat out of its pins and likely smashing into the bridge, breaking the windows and flooding her. Having lost her bridge and steering, she presumably also lost her engines. Unable to maintain her heading into the storm, it would have forced her to turn broadside into the waves. She seems to have floated for a number of hours, but the storm and inaccurate positioning prevented her from being located. She was then hulled by the force of the waves, perhaps even being capsized or breached by another rogue wave. She would then have succumbed to the flooding and sunk within a short period."

The simple fact is that none of the three cases you cite are particularly valuable; eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, physical evidence is notorously ambiguous, and the simple rarity of such cases prevents a cautious investigator from giving much credence to any of them.
The second case couldn't be much more clear: "In 1966, the Italian cruise ship Michelangelo was steaming toward New York when a giant wave tore a hole in its superstructure, smashed heavy glass 80 feet above the waterline, and killed a crewman and two passengers." What was the alternative in that case to a rogue wave?

TjW

8th May 2008, 09:45 PM

Non sequitur. Even if I dropped a piece of valuable jewelery down the drain, I don't believe it would be worthwhile to search through the solid waste at the wastewater treatment plant -- unless we were talking about something of staggering value, such as the Hope Diamond (which, through an unfortunate twist of fate, is not in my possession at the moment).

It's not a non-sequitur, it's an analogy. You start these threads periodically, apparently bemoaning the fact that science does not pay as much attention as you would like to various woo ideas.

Usually, the idea is that science is missing out on valuable information, just as it did with rogue waves, or heavier-than-air flight, or plate tectonics, or antibiotics curing ulcers, or any of a handful of currently accepted ideas that once had some controversy associated with them.

There's three problems I see with this position.

One is that the subjects of discussion are no longer controversial, so the idea of science is not broken, even if individual practitioners of it may be wrongheaded from time to time. We didn't miss out, we just waited for evidence.

The second is that some controversial ideas ultimately being accepted due to sufficient evidence says nothing at all about whether other controversial ideas are right.

The last is that there's an awful lot of woo crap to go through.

Carrying the analogy a little further, suppose I told you that through an even odder twist of fate, the Hope Diamond had, unfortunately, been lost in your local wastewater treatment plant. Now would you immediately start wading through the sludge?

Do you suppose you might check to see if it's still in the possession of the Smithsonian? Suppose you did, and they said "Yep. It's still here."

Now, it's possible, that it really is lost, and they're covering up the loss due to embarassment. But is the likelihood of that high enough for you to get out your waders?

bruto

9th May 2008, 05:31 AM

I see differences in all three examples: In the first example, the Ramapo's crew -- presumably a relatively small one since this was an oil tanker and not a passenger ship -- says that it triangulated a wave of about 112 feet, but they could have made up the story or greatly exaggerated it because there apparently was no loss of life or major damage to the ship. In the second example, there was major damage, three deaths, and very likely numerous eyewitness accounts from both the crew and passengers. In the third example, there was major damage and the loss of the entire crew, but no eyewitness accounts. While the latter is a negative, careful examination of the damage could establish with a high degree of certainty that a giant wave was responsible.

So, to me, the second example is the most evidential and the first example is the least evidential. However, this is not to say that I disbelieve the Ramapo crew's account. I think that evidence is a continuum and can't be separated into two boxes, one of them labeled "valuable non-anecdotal evidence" and the other labeled "worthless anecdotal evidence." All three of the above examples should have been taken seriously by oceanographers, but were not by most, until the evidence of rogue waves became unchallengeable.

I think you're missing my point here. The issue to me in this case is not the reliability of the evidence, but the object of it. Whatever their quality, the first two examples constituted some sort of evidence, anecdotal or not, of waves. The third constituted evidence of damage which one might attribute to a wave. To me, whatever, you might think of the reliability of the accounts, or the aptness of the inference, the first two differ in a substantive way from the third.

If I report that Mr. A shot Mr. B with a rifle, I might be an unreliable witness, and a liar, but what I am reporting is an observation of a shooting. It may be a bad observation or a lie, but it is the reported observation of a shooting. It requires no inference of cause. If someone finds Mr. B's body in the woods, and the coroner reports that he was killed with a rifle, his conclusion may well be more reliable, and possibly even more complete and detailed as to the exact weapon than my eyewitness report, and more valuable, but it's a different kind of evidence, and depends entirely on his expertise, experience and credibility. The coroner has seen only the body. He has not seen the shooting.

A rotten apple doesn't make an orange a better apple by comparison.

blutoski

9th May 2008, 02:41 PM

I think you're missing my point here. The issue to me in this case is not the reliability of the evidence, but the object of it. Whatever their quality, the first two examples constituted some sort of evidence, anecdotal or not, of waves. The third constituted evidence of damage which one might attribute to a wave. To me, whatever, you might think of the reliability of the accounts, or the aptness of the inference, the first two differ in a substantive way from the third.

I think what you're saying is that you distinguish between anecdotal evidence and physical evidence. It's a category discussion.

Just to put my two cents' worth in: I consider both anecdotal evidence and physical evidence to be, well... evidence. There are plenty of cases where anecdotal evidence can be more reliable than physical evidence, so it's not a black-and-white comparison.