TIGHAR
Chatterbox => Theorizing about Theories => Topic started by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 12, 2012, 07:42:30 AM
-
I think that continues to be the greatest category of misunderstanding/obfuscation offered by the "typical" naysayer, i.e, that because THEY would certainly say, do, or understand a certain thing, that AE/FN obviously MUST also have. There must be a name for the application of such a fallacy...Marty?
I don't have a good grip on that "fallacy," if it even is a fallacy in the strict sense of the word.
I read through the "List of fallacies" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies) on Wikipedia, and saw several candidates. My hesitation about calling it a strict fallacy is that sometimes our sense of what people would do might correspond to what they actually did do. It isn't necessarily wrong every time to reason that:
- All humans share a common nature.
- Reason inclines us to affirm the true, the beautiful, and the good.
- What one rational person would affirm in a given set of circumstances should resemble what other rational thinkers would do.
This is not "pure logic." It is existentialism, or something like existentialism, I suppose. I'm not sure that we can live without this kind of analogous thinking--"They must have done some of the things I would have done, if I were them"--even if it is very weak reasoning.
I'm going to split this out of the "Betty's Notebook" thread as soon as I'm done with this post. Someone else may be able to classify the argument better than I can. ::)
-
Thanks much for your reasoned reponse, Marty.
I realize that I coulda/shoulda consulted that Wiki list myself (quite comprehensive), but I knew that you would be able to add further value to my understanding. I'm here to learn more than to express, and am delighted for the opportunity to do both.
dp
-
I realize that I coulda/shoulda consulted that Wiki list myself (quite comprehensive) ...
It's the first time I looked at it myself, but it is packed with good stuff.
The "If by 'whiskey'" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey) argument is a new one by me. That's the best laugh I've had this week! ;D
-
"woulda coulda shoulda" came to mind:
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-woulda-coulda-shoulda-mean.htm
There were just so many 'obvious to us' courses of action that could have prevented this tragedy.
It's just that those two were so intelligent, capable and experienced, but perhaps after such a long flight at possibly the recommended 10k altitude, they were impaired by hypoxia.
Symptoms are not obvious to the sufferer, but Navigation Performance Skills vanish.
Just one that glares out would be after experiencing apparently the First Reception (after switching to the 'Loop' antenna) just tuning down the dial from that HF frequency to the LF Band (where I trust Itaska was also transmitting 'A's) would have provided the 'Null' needed to steer them to Howland Island Airfield.
As an aviator, I look at an air tragedy with the eye of why and how it could have been prevented more so than what happened to them after they were down...
-
Commander Thompson on the Itasca seems to have based his decision to search NW of Howland on "I would have..." and "they must have" reasoning. In the absence of sufficient data, it seems to be a very typical response to mysteries.
-
I'm torn between the "appeal to probability" fallacy and the "appeal to common practice" fallacy.
-
I'm torn between the "appeal to probability" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability) fallacy and the "appeal to common practice" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_common_practice) fallacy.
I skipped right over that first one. But reading that page leads to the Van Gogh Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Gogh_fallacy). That has "nothing to do with the case" (Gilbert and Sullivan, The Mikado), but it does make me laugh. :)
The appeal to common practice (or appeal to tradition) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_common_practice) makes me realize that sometimes we are guilty of anachronism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anachronism), which means assuming that something extant or true in our present age must have been extant or true in previous ages. I was guilty of anachronism when I interpreted the Luke Field testimony about "landing mats" as referring to pierced-steel plates or Marsden matting.
-
"I was guilty of anachronism when I interpreted the Luke Field testimony about 'landing mats' as referring to pierced-steel plates or Marsden matting."
I've tried to be very careful about not making any comments about appealing to common practice, but it is incredibly tempting. In the discussion threads about whether Amelia would choose to land on a reef rather than ditch in the lagoon, I was tempted to point out that my friends who all flew would try to avoid ditching at all costs. I recall a scene in the "Bridges of Toko Ri" where William Holden's character is asked if he wants to land and risk missing the arresting wire and hitting "Tilly" the aircraft crane, or ditching. He says no thanks to ditching, and he will come aboard. (Great tense scene with awesome view of carrier operations.) He echoes what I understand from naval aviators, who all would prefer landing on something rather than ditching. But then I have to catch myself, because I can't place Amelia in that position. I have to remind myself that just because so many would not ditch if they could avoid it, does not mean that she did choose to avoid ditching.
But then I do wonder if such thoughts are inherent in any search operation, from Commander Thompson's thoughts, to the thoughts of whoever it was that organized the Colorado search.
-
But then I do wonder if such thoughts are inherent in any search operation, from Commander Thompson's thoughts, to the thoughts of whoever it was that organized the Colorado search.
I would think so. ::)
It seems necessary to me that we start by imagining other people to be like us, and then start subtracting (as you did with your example about carrier pilots, who are a very bizarre and specialized group of pilots!).
-
Marty wrote:
The appeal to common practice (or appeal to tradition) makes me realize that sometimes we are guilty of anachronism, which means assuming that something extant or true in our present age must have been extant or true in previous ages.
IMO, this one is also exemplified in threads about the apparent lack of success of the aerial search of Gardner Island on 9 July 1937. It is perhaps too easy from a modern-day perspective to initially arrive at the notion that the Colorado aircraft/pilots "would have" engaged in SAR techniques equivilant to today's.
Following thhat, we of course quite naturally wish to believe that today's SAR is most effective and would save ourselves or our loved-ones if an apt tragedy struck.
It would seem natural to aply this wish to the case of our Tragic Heroes, and for some to become somewhat incredulous when confronted with the information that the Lambrecht team apparently failed, because....well...."how could they?"
VERY interesting.
dp
-
It would seem natural to aply this wish to the case of our Tragic Heroes, and for some to become somewhat incredulous when confronted with the information that the Lambrecht team apparently failed, because....well...."how could they?"
Dave, you've struck a chord that has resonated with me for quite some time. We can all go out on those various current media postings that allow reader comments and see beastly denigrating comments about the Colorado's aviators who searched the Phoenix Islands. I wince when I encounter those.
In both the current and archived Earhart Forum postings, we can find similar sentiments, but subsequent posters will usually respond with some kind word that reminds the original poster that today's SAR practices and techniques were not in existence back in 1937.
My fervent hope is that TIGHAR already has planned for countering any swell of such unkind remarks and conclusions if and when conclusive evidence emerges that AE and FN ended up on Niku.
-
Let us not limit ourselves to concerns about the Lambrecht search over Niku. "The failure to spot AE" might just as well apply to the Itasca search NW of Howland, and also the Colorado search of some very large area of open ocean, plus more recent expeditions that also looked for signs of the splashed-and-sank Electra. If remains of the Electra are found adjacent to the Niku reef, then people may blame Lambrecht. If remains of the Electra are discovered on the ocean bottom in an area searched by the Colorado and other areas searched by other ships, then they will be blamed for their "failure". Don't denigrate any search that might have overlooked AE/FN bobbing among the waves or missed in an aerial survay. As someone already mentioned, 'it's a big ocean', and those searchers did the best they could.
-
Bruce wrote:
My fervent hope is that TIGHAR already has planned for countering any swell of such unkind remarks and conclusions if and when conclusive evidence emerges that AE and FN ended up on Niku.
Bruce, it occurs to me that, once again thanks to TIGHAR, these exchanges on understanding the underpinnings of the "fallacies of logic" that sometimes assert themselves here & there is a boon to our ability to counter them with measured response, be it to a "sound-bite" media, or perhaps an over-zealous "naysayer". :'(
This to me is consistent with the much appreciated TIGHAR zest for logic as applied to the Niku Hypothesis.
LTM, who taught her son to think logically, and act with reason.
dp
-
I don't blame those naval aviators at all. This was the era of the Great Depression, and the Navy wanted to curry as much favor with FDR as possible. The Navy knew that Amelia Earhart was popular with the Roosevelts. FDR loved the Navy, and used to go on fishing retreats on Navy cruisers. (Can you imagine the public outcry today?) Those aviators would have jumped at the chance to find Amelia Earhart. I imagine they did the best they could, but as we all know, sometimes your best isn't good enough.
If Amelia was alive on July 9th on Gardner Island, she probably wasn't expecting Navy scout planes launched from a battleship to come zipping over. She was probably expecting the Itasca to come moseying over the horizon.
-
I imagine they did the best they could, but as we all know, sometimes your best isn't good enough.
Exactly, Anthony, the Lambrecht team did the best they could with the best they had, under the directive they were given.
And, yup, though we often wish to hear of the victories, history is replete with examples of the latter part of your statement.
dp
-
If Amelia was alive on July 9th on Gardner Island, she probably wasn't expecting Navy scout planes launched from a battleship to come zipping over. She was probably expecting the Itasca to come moseying over the horizon
And after she discovered the navy was searching for her by air why didn’t she place some rocks on the beach in the form of : A E or just a big X on the beach, or any other of a dozen signs she could easily have made for what she had to hope for would be follow up searches. Some of us believe she was on Gardner because we believe she was transmitting before the Lambrecht flight. Is it at all possible that Amelia might have passed away in the two days between her last transmit ion and the Lambrecht flight? After the Lambrecht flight, what act (s) did she do, and only her, that makes you so sure it could only have been Amelia and not any of the 100 plus people who were also on Gardner for many years after this flight.
-
And after she discovered the navy was searching for her by air why didn’t she place some rocks on the beach in the form of : A E or just a big X on the beach, or any other of a dozen signs she could easily have made for what she had to hope for would be follow up searches.
Would those be big river rocks or some pine cones from a nice pine forest, neither of which appear to exist on Nikumaroro?
How do we know she didn't make an X in the sand after the Navy planes left? They didn't come back. The next documented visitors were native Gilbertese and a couple of British officers preparing to turn the place into a colony. Maybe the markers she left were the signs of recent habitation that Lambrecht saw. Your arguments and my arguments are too speculative to me.
The point of this thread is to point out the fallacies in reasoning with "I would have" to get to "they must have." My post was simply pointing out that if Amelia Earhart was on Nikumaroro, she was not expecting Navy float planes to zip overhead. She was expecting Itasca.
-
Your arguments and my arguments are too speculative to me.
River rocks? Not available. Pine cones? Not available.
Rocks: available. Pieces of coral: available.
-
The point of this thread is to show that engaging in what you would have done, and extrapolating that they must have done that is a fallacy in logical thinking. I'm going to give an example, and be prepared to suffer the wrath of others for not using a good example.
Several years ago I watched a program on the Discovery Channel or one of those kinds of channels. The viewer was presented with survival scenarios based on actual historical fact, and then challenge the viewer to make a decision. Later in the program, they reveal what the actual survivor did, and what was likely to happen with the other options. The following case was presented.
On April 26, 1976, Lauren Elder was a passenger in a Cessna 182P on a flight from Oakland to Furnace Creek in Death Valley. The plane crashed in the Sierra Nevada when the pilot missed Kearsarge Pass. The wreckage ended up on a ridge above 12,000 feet about a half mile south of Mount Bradley. The pilot and another passenger were severely injured in the crash, and died the next day. On the first night, Ms. Elder could see the lights of Owens Valley below, but shear icy cliffs lay in that direction. In the other direction, was miles of snowy wilderness towards Fresno. She was dressed in blouse, a wraparound skirt, and boots with 2 inch heels. At this point, the viewer was offered the option of walking through the woods and mountains to Fresno, or climbing down the dangerous cliff face to the Owens Valley.
I chose the option of walking to Fresno. I based my decision on my personal experiences, having grown up in the White Mountains of Arizona, and having a lot of experience hunting, fishing, and camping. Later in the program, the viewer was shown that this would have been a difficult trek, in thawing deep snows through miles of wilderness.
Ms. Elder did not pick my option. In real life she spent several days climbing down the cliff face and walked into the town of Independence, California.
The point of this example is, what I would have done is not what someone else did do.