Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Down

Author Topic: AE & FN injured?  (Read 95336 times)

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: AE & FN injured?
« Reply #75 on: August 08, 2014, 08:14:18 PM »


If Nessie is landing gear wreckage and if there were injuries, why couldn't they be two separate incidents?

They could be, but where is the evidence?

There is none that I can think of, just as there is no evidence that they were caused by a single incident.  Lots of scenarios are possible.
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: AE & FN injured?
« Reply #76 on: August 09, 2014, 06:18:41 AM »

The lesson here to me is that while so many things are possible, and so many ideas are attractive to adhere to, they are all conjecture until one has firm evidence in-hand.

There is to me also a difference in how these scenarios may offer traction toward testing the hypothesis / solving the mystery, or not.  I'm not sure this level of discussion actually moves the effort forward at this point; perhaps it will be useful one day to interpret more fully 'what happened'.  Until we have a true smoking gun in-hand, this level of discussion is all just so much speculation, IMHO.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Mark Samuels

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: AE & FN injured?
« Reply #77 on: August 09, 2014, 07:41:23 AM »

The lesson here to me is that while so many things are possible, and so many ideas are attractive to adhere to, they are all conjecture until one has firm evidence in-hand.

There is to me also a difference in how these scenarios may offer traction toward testing the hypothesis / solving the mystery, or not.  I'm not sure this level of discussion actually moves the effort forward at this point; perhaps it will be useful one day to interpret more fully 'what happened'.  Until we have a true smoking gun in-hand, this level of discussion is all just so much speculation, IMHO.

Mr. Neville, while it may be good fun to play cat and mouse with this subject, as I indicated down thread there is no evidence or proof that Amelia Earhart or Fred Noonan were ever injured as a result of a crash on Gardner Island, said crash is a bone of contention in and of itself.  I would highly recommend closing this thread unless and until tangible evidence is shown to the contrary.  Science doesn't embrace speculation. 

The logic of science boiled down to one, essential idea. It comes from Richard Feynman, one of the great scientists of the 20th century, who wrote it on the blackboard during a class at Cornell in 1964.

Think about what he's saying. Science is our way of describing — as best we can — how the world works. The world, it is presumed, works perfectly well without us. Our thinking about it makes no important difference. It is out there, being the world. We are locked in, busy in our minds. And when our minds make a guess about what's happening out there, if we put our guess to the test, and we don't get the results we expect, as Feynman says, there can be only one conclusion: we're wrong.

The world knows. Our minds guess. In any contest between the two, The World Out There wins. It doesn't matter, Feynman tells the class, "how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is, if it disagrees with the experiment, it is wrong."

This view is based on an almost sacred belief that the ways of the world are unshakable, ordered by laws that have no moods, no variance, that what's "Out There" has no mind. And that we, creatures of imagination, colored by our ability to tell stories, to predict, to empathize, to remember — that we are a separate domain, creatures different from the order around us. We live, full of mind, in a mindless place. The world, says the great poet Wislawa Szymborska, is "inhuman." It doesn't work on hope, or beauty or dreams. It just...is.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: AE & FN injured?
« Reply #78 on: August 09, 2014, 07:56:41 AM »


...as I indicated down thread there is no evidence or proof that Amelia Earhart or Fred Noonan were ever injured as a result of a crash on Gardner Island, said crash is a bone of contention in and of itself.  I would highly recommend closing this thread unless and until tangible evidence is shown to the contrary.  Science doesn't embrace speculation. 

Ahhh, but it does.  Science begins with speculation. We imagine something that might be true and then we try to figure out whether or not it IS true.  It's fine to imagine that there might have been an arrival crash that separated one of the land gear assemblies and caused injuries.  That imagined scenario sends us on a hunt for evidence to either support or reject that possibility.  If we find neither then the possibility stands as merely that - a possibility.  But the exercise still has value.

Logged

Mark Samuels

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: AE & FN injured?
« Reply #79 on: August 09, 2014, 08:06:15 AM »


...as I indicated down thread there is no evidence or proof that Amelia Earhart or Fred Noonan were ever injured as a result of a crash on Gardner Island, said crash is a bone of contention in and of itself.  I would highly recommend closing this thread unless and until tangible evidence is shown to the contrary.  Science doesn't embrace speculation. 

Ahhh, but it does.  Science begins with speculation. We imagine something that might be true and then we try to figure out whether or not it IS true.  It's fine to imagine that there might have been an arrival crash that separated one of the land gear assemblies and caused injuries.  That imagined scenario sends us on a hunt for evidence to either support or reject that possibility.  If we find neither then the possibility stands as merely that - a possibility.  But the exercise still has value.

Then are you saying Mr. Gillespie that the Niku hypothesis is speculation and not theory?  Or are we dealing in semantics?
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: AE & FN injured?
« Reply #80 on: August 09, 2014, 08:09:23 AM »

Then are you saying Mr. Gillespie that the Niku hypothesis is speculation and not theory?  Or are we dealing in semantics?

I suspect we're dealing with semantics.  How does speculation differ from theory? How does a hypothesis differ from a theory?   
Logged

Mark Samuels

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: AE & FN injured?
« Reply #81 on: August 09, 2014, 08:15:35 AM »

Then are you saying Mr. Gillespie that the Niku hypothesis is speculation and not theory?  Or are we dealing in semantics?

I suspect we're dealing with semantics.  How does speculation differ from theory? How does a hypothesis differ from a theory?

Isn't a theory a hypothesis that has been proven?
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: AE & FN injured?
« Reply #82 on: August 09, 2014, 09:00:48 AM »

Isn't a theory a hypothesis that has been proven?

I think you'll find that most dictionaries consider theory, hypothesis and speculation to be synonyms - all meaning the same thing: "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."

A theory/hypothesis/speculation that is considered to be conclusively proven is a law or a fact, such as Newton's Laws of Motion or the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
Logged

Mark Samuels

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: AE & FN injured?
« Reply #83 on: August 09, 2014, 09:10:09 AM »

Isn't a theory a hypothesis that has been proven?

I think you'll find that most dictionaries consider theory, hypothesis and speculation to be synonyms - all meaning the same thing: "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."

A theory/hypothesis/speculation that is considered to be conclusively proven is a law or a fact, such as Newton's Laws of Motion or the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

I've not seen where speculation is a synonym for theory or hypothesis though I've seen where theory and hypothesis have been said to be the same thing.  The more a hypothesis is tested and holds up, it is better accepted as a theory.   I am reminded however, Einstein's theory of relativity has withstood over a hundred years of testing. Let us not chase this around the room with the laser pointer and agree to disagree on the premise that they are one in the same.
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: AE & FN injured?
« Reply #84 on: August 09, 2014, 09:13:04 AM »

Whoaaa... You two are way over my head!

I was just contemplating garden variety BS!!!
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Bruce Thomas

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 651
  • Now where did I put my glasses?
Re: AE & FN injured?
« Reply #85 on: August 09, 2014, 09:42:30 AM »

Isn't a theory a hypothesis that has been proven?
Actually, a theory is a framework that generates one or more hypotheses. One does not "prove" a hypothesis, but rather tests the hypothesis against facts to see if it withstands the testing or else fails. The more an hypothesis is able to survive the testing, the more the theory is accepted as valid. 

Quoting the Wikipedia entry for "theory",
Quote
A theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.

An hypothesis is a tool for examining the validity of a theory. An hypothesis is tested, not proved. It may fail the testing, which does not necessarily disprove the theory. Or the hypothesis may pass rigorous testing, but that does not prove the theory, it only provides strong support for the validity of the theory. But the hypothesis is never the theory; rather, it is a tool for testing the theory.

In TIGHAR's case, the theory is that AE and FN did not simply vanish into thin air, but that they were able to use their combined skills in piloting and navigation to reach a safe haven. This theory has led to the Nikumaroro Hypothesis, with many aspects (i.e., sub-hypotheses) to it that can be tested. Because some treat hypothesis and theory as synonyms, that leads to arguments such as we see in this thread.

Ultimately, even if every aspect of the overarching hypothesis were to be discredited, the theory that spawned the hypothesis might still be correct. That is perhaps the most frustrating thing about testing each aspect of the Nikumaroro Hypothesis, because finding the "any idiot artifact" that would establish the proof (or disproof) of the theory is elusively hard. Merely failing to "disprove" the Nikumaroro Hypothesis won't prove the theory, and I fear that there are those who think that "failure to discredit the hypothesis" says that the hypothesis (or the theory) has been proven. But I repeat: one does not prove the hypothesis -- the hypothesis and its testing are used to bolster the validity of the theory. So it is important to distinguish between the actual theory versus the hypotheses used to test it. In fact, in testing an hypothesis, it might fail the test but in the process the "any idiot artifact" might be discovered that conclusively proves (or disproves!) the theory.

In short, a theory is not an hypothesis that has been proven, since an hypothesis is just a testing tool for the theory.     
LTM,

Bruce
TIGHAR #3123R
 
Logged

Mark Samuels

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: AE & FN injured?
« Reply #86 on: August 09, 2014, 09:55:48 AM »


In short, a theory is not an hypothesis that has been proven, since an hypothesis is just a testing tool for the theory.   

Exactly Mr. Thomas, and do I hear an 'Amen'?
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: AE & FN injured?
« Reply #87 on: August 09, 2014, 09:58:19 AM »

That makes sense to me.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: AE & FN injured?
« Reply #88 on: August 09, 2014, 10:05:55 AM »

In TIGHAR's case, the theory is that AE and FN did not simply vanish into thin air, but that they were able to use their combined skills in piloting and navigation to reach a safe haven.

I would say that TIGHAR's theory is that AE and FN reached, and died on, Gardner Island (now Nikumaroro).  Whether they got there by skill or dumb luck is probably unknowable.
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: AE & FN injured?
« Reply #89 on: August 09, 2014, 12:32:27 PM »

Amen!

What Ric said, too.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP