Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 15   Go Down

Author Topic: 3 Problems with Niku hypothesis / inconsistencies  (Read 166096 times)

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #165 on: May 17, 2012, 09:26:16 PM »

Hey Lisa Anne--see the KOK out here anywhere? Pics would be cool-
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #166 on: May 17, 2012, 10:42:52 PM »

> ... I respectfully submit that in science those rules do not have much real force ...

When you declare (assert without evidence) what is true and false about "science," you leave your field of digging and dating and enter a different arena.

You are making generalizations about what "science" is and does.

You are not making these generalizations by using the methods of science, but by using the methods of philosophy, history, sociology, psychology (introspective, not experimental), etc.

I respectfully disagree with your account of how science works.

Newton's theory of universal gravitation as the explanation of Kepler's laws of planetary motion was accepted as a reality long before the experimental data of stellar parallax confirmed Newton's theory.  It was entirely a circumstantial evidence case.  No one sees gravity; we infer its existence from watching other things happen.  Newton did not see that the other planets are essentially just like the earth; he supposed it and showed the consequences that followed from that supposition.  He showed how the pieces fit--Galileo's laws of motion, Kepler's ellipses, and his own theory of gravity.  People were sold on the idea, and they were right to be sold on it.

The Niku hypothesis is nowhere near that strong.  Everything in the case could have come from someone else. 

Quote
Additionally we have the reality that a jury can be swayed by circumstances which despite the evidence presented will go against what the evidence provides.

Scientists function as a jury, too.  The man whose biography I completed for Oxford University Press in 2005 was told that his theory of the adsorption of gases was wrong by Einstein, Planck, and Haber.  They were wrong, and Polanyi was right, but he could not show why they were wrong until quantum mechanics was developed.

Quote
In science we ...

I know you're using shorthand again.  What you meant to say was, "It is my opinion that scientists ..."  Unless, of course, you've been appointed the Speaker on behalf of All Scientists.

Quote
... attempt to reach conclusions free of extraneous issues such as mitigation etc. and only reflect what the data presented dictates. Courts of law allow for human frailty where they can - science doesn't.

The courts aren't "allowing for human frailty."  They accept the fact that sometimes events take place that cannot be directly observed.  This is true of all nuclear events.  We know them only by their effects; we do not see quantum phenomena.

Quote
But that aside, I cannot recall that I have called into question any of the qualifications of your team and in fact why should I. In any scientific endeavour, unless there was blatant and obvious manipulation of data, one trusts the capabilities of those who present their results. I certainly have never questioned Dr King's results and I cannot even imagine why I should. My assessment of the archaeology of Nikumaroro is based on his published material. Neither have I questioned the work of Dr Burns, again I have suggested that if the actual material was relocated then it would provide a surer basis for claims made about it. There is nothing unreasonable in that as far as I can see.

Great!  Then we agree that it was a reasonable thing for a scientist of her caliber to work with the measurements provided by Dr. Hoodless.  That's a step forward, I believe.

Quote
However none of that affects what is the primary purpose of this forum which is to discuss the Nikumaroro hypothesis and the evidence on which it is based.

You're the one who keeps presenting his credentials as a trained scientist, modest, objective, logical, and dispassionate.  You assert things about science that are not from the field in which you hold your credentials.  When someone makes a statement based on their own personal authority, it seems to me that it is OK to evaluate whether they are, in fact, authorities on the point in question.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #167 on: May 17, 2012, 11:40:03 PM »


I respectfully disagree with your account of how science works.


Noted - that is your right.

However for the rest I suspect that you have taken this discussion so far from what is simply an analysis of the Nikumaroro hypothesis and its supporting evidence that perhaps you should start a new section. As for your statement -

"I know you're using shorthand again.  What you meant to say was, "It is my opinion that scientists ..."  Unless, of course, you've been appointed the Speaker on behalf of All Scientists."

am I right in assuming that you alone claim that right?

As for Kepler and Newton they at least were demonstrated to be right, but so far the Nikumaroro hypothesis remains unproven. That is what this discussion is about and as long as there are claims made for the meaning of the evidence, or new evidence is introduced, then that discussion will continue. And sometimes claims made for the value of something contain so many assumptions that are not supported by the data that one is fully justified in either pointing that out or asking more questions.

As an avid supporter of the hypothesis you should be glad that it is examined rigorously because only through that process will the hypothesis be confirmed or denied. Just be glad that it isn't a legal setting where the verdict is blurred by the random levels of ignorance of the members of a jury - the hypothesis would never be proved either way.
Logged
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #168 on: May 18, 2012, 02:42:44 AM »


I respectfully disagree with your account of how science works.




As an avid supporter of the hypothesis you should be glad that it is examined rigorously because only through that process will the hypothesis be confirmed or denied. Just be glad that it isn't a legal setting where the verdict is blurred by the random levels of ignorance of the members of a jury - the hypothesis would never be proved either way.

Well, but all the other hypthesisis would never be proved either way too, because no one would test them too. And they WERE examined (Goerner, Long, Billings) but they were not proven. (Nothing was found, absolutely nothing.) Why not search at Niku? There is  at least some evidence. It's as likely to find the Electra there as somewhere else in the Pacific around Howland.
No, it's more likely. That doesn't mean I think the Niku-theory is right. But it's possibly right. So - why not search there?
Without any search we NEVER will know!
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #169 on: May 18, 2012, 04:23:16 AM »


I respectfully disagree with your account of how science works.




As an avid supporter of the hypothesis you should be glad that it is examined rigorously because only through that process will the hypothesis be confirmed or denied. Just be glad that it isn't a legal setting where the verdict is blurred by the random levels of ignorance of the members of a jury - the hypothesis would never be proved either way.

Well, but all the other hypthesisis would never be proved either way too, because no one would test them too. And they WERE examined (Goerner, Long, Billings) but they were not proven. (Nothing was found, absolutely nothing.) Why not search at Niku? There is  at least some evidence. It's as likely to find the Electra there as somewhere else in the Pacific around Howland.
No, it's more likely. That doesn't mean I think the Niku-theory is right. But it's possibly right. So - why not search there?
Without any search we NEVER will know!

Of course and a search that is interesting. But in this case it is not just the hypothesis that is tested, it is the individual components that together constitute the hypothesis that must be tested before anyone can say that the hypothesis has validity. So far that process of testing the individual parts which constitute the hypothesis has thrown up a number of areas where more data is needed - no one can deny that. Nothing wrong with that - just part of the process of proving a hypothesis. This is simply a historical missing persons case. If Earhart and Noonan finished up on Nikumaroro then we expect that evidence will prove it, if it doesn't then we move on and look for answers elsewhere. Just standard operating procedure in research.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #170 on: May 18, 2012, 06:26:14 AM »

"I know you're using shorthand again.  What you meant to say was, "It is my opinion that scientists ..."  Unless, of course, you've been appointed the Speaker on behalf of All Scientists."

am I right in assuming that you alone claim that right?

No.  I claim the right to notice inconsistencies and to investigate whether people apply the same standards to themselves that they expect from others.

Quote
As for Kepler and Newton they at least were demonstrated to be right, but so far the Nikumaroro hypothesis remains unproven.

I have conceded that from the beginning.  It's called a "hypothesis" on purpose.  It is a testable idea.  It is being tested.

Quote
That is what this discussion is about and as long as there are claims made for the meaning of the evidence, or new evidence is introduced, then that discussion will continue.

Then I will continue to discuss "claims made for the meaning of the evidence," too.

Quote
And sometimes claims made for the value of something contain so many assumptions that are not supported by the data that one is fully justified in either pointing that out or asking more questions.

You've made my point exactly!  You are making many assumptions about how science works that "are not supported by the data."

Quote
As an avid supporter of the hypothesis you should be glad that it is examined rigorously because only through that process will the hypothesis be confirmed or denied.

As an avid supporter of "science," you should be glad to have your assumptions about science "examined rigorously" because, on your account of how science works, "only through that process" will your hypotheses about science be confirmed or denied.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Quote
Just be glad that it isn't a legal setting where the verdict is blurred by the random levels of ignorance of the members of a jury - the hypothesis would never be proved either way.

I love the jury system.

It is one of the wonders of western civilization.

Strange things do happen, of course, and there are jury and judicial verdicts that I think are unjust.

But scientists are also human.  They, too, suffer from "random levels of ignorance."  It is fascinating to me to see how many of them cannot recognize the boundaries of their discipline and don't even realize that they have stopped acting as scientists and started speaking as philosophers.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #171 on: May 18, 2012, 07:02:36 PM »

That doesn't mean I think the Niku-theory is right. But it's possibly right. So - why not search there?
Without any search we NEVER will know!

I have never argued that there shouldn't be a search there. All I and several others have done is discuss components of the evidence offered for the hypothesis and found some of them to be unconvincing - but that is how it works. Some people see a hypothesis as a broad brush, others, like myself, like to examine the components. Equally I would support a decent search of East New Britain, more submersible work on the ocean floor around Howland and even a decent survey of the Gilberts. As I keep saying I am completely open-minded.

Before anyone asks, no I am not wealthy enough to support the expense  ;D .
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #172 on: May 18, 2012, 07:12:38 PM »


I love the jury system.

It is one of the wonders of western civilization.

Strange things do happen, of course, and there are jury and judicial verdicts that I think are unjust.

But scientists are also human.  They, too, suffer from "random levels of ignorance."  It is fascinating to me to see how many of them cannot recognize the boundaries of their discipline and don't even realize that they have stopped acting as scientists and started speaking as philosophers.

Not me Martin - philosophy was always my bete noire, could never find a philosopher willing to give a straight answer without trying to explain each word. However I do thank you for conceding that we are human, although have I stepped outside of my discipline to say that? Still I have always found that a bit of research before one says something can be useful - that way one doesn't make a claim that is at odds with the material evidence.
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #173 on: May 19, 2012, 02:24:00 PM »

like i said in other post about Tighars search

Tighar have done the research an leg work into Earhart disappearance unlike some

they discovered the letters from Gallagher to high commission, concerning bones found on Gardner

in which he assumes it is a woman's skeleton based on the shoe found, in 1940

Tighar through ground work on the island, find the heel of a shoe which is consistent with the one found in 1940

the Itasca log say's Earhart's last transmission was "we are on the line 157/337 running north and south

Tighar through research discover the line to run in vicinity of Gardner island

Tighar through research discover statements in archives from over flight of Gardner by search planes

that one of the pilot's see's sign's of recent habitation on Gardner which hadn't been habitat-ed for years 

Tighar also discover that SOS call's were received in different parts of pacific and else were, that were claimed to be from Earhart  saying she was on reef.....

my point is Tighar through finding actual documented stuff, in archives have found evidence, that support the hypothesis that the flight could have ended at Gardner

Tighar are just adding pieces to the puzzle with supported evidence

 :) 
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #174 on: May 19, 2012, 06:32:55 PM »


my point is Tighar through finding actual documented stuff, in archives have found evidence, that support the hypothesis that the flight could have ended at Gardner

Tighar are just adding pieces to the puzzle with supported evidence

 :)

Indeed, but it is still simply a hypothesis, and that is what the discussion is about.
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #175 on: May 20, 2012, 06:50:19 PM »


This - that we 'have only a hypothesis' - we well know full well, and work well with.

LTM -

So? we are in agreement.
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #176 on: May 21, 2012, 01:30:33 AM »

My point exactly, Malcolm - but your implication (which you omitted from your response and didn't answer) was otherwise:

Quote
...that way one doesn't make a claim that is at odds with the material evidence.

Which TIGHAR's never done.

LTM -

That remark had nothing to do with TIGHAR, it was in response to something else if you read the relevant exchange more closely you will see.
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #177 on: May 21, 2012, 05:43:48 AM »

Hum---Dr. Malcolm---I'm not wealthy either. Saved a LONG time to be able to make this trip. Even after paying for it, I debated it for a long time. But ----you have your reasons, and I have mine, and others have theirs. I wanted to learn more about AE's final fight, something I've been curious about since I was a young man. This is the opprotunity for me to learn that, since I cant go to Niku. All the experts in their fields wil be in DC, and I can talk to them. I can see for myself the potential evidence, the facts as we know them, and decide for myself if TIGHAR is right or not.
Its a choice I made, and after the symposium, I'll be smarter for it. And ---I will have met face to face with those of a different view, and discussed it. Its about helping TIGHAR find some answers to questions. I fell that armed with the first-hand knowledge from the symposium, I can better tell fact for fiction, and for that matter who is for real , and who isnt.
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #178 on: May 21, 2012, 09:48:41 AM »

Nicely said Tom

This is also one of my reasons for attending. We all sit at keyboards and read what others say. We don't get to see the "whites of their eyes".  To me this ability to meet the people behind the names is going to allow me an opportunity to get the human factor back into this.  I really wish more people could attend as it seems many of you can't get there. 

We know you can video conference over the Internet but forum teleconferencing for large groups isn't a standard yet.  Some day I'm sure it will be and you will be able to connect in and share in a two way dialogue and not just watch one way.  But how do you sit together and enjoy a brew or two that way. That's probably not going to happen. LOL

75th year, big ROV search going ahead.  What if they find it?  Will there be another symposium?  Isn't this the time to get to the symposium? 
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #179 on: May 21, 2012, 10:36:27 AM »

75th year, big ROV search going ahead.  What if they find it?

Ric will get to write another book.

Quote
Will there be another symposium?

First bet: no.

Second bet: not until the second book is written.

But let's not count our chickens before they hatch. 

IF Niku hypothesis is true (note the "if"), this summer's search could still be inconclusive.

  • The components of the aircraft may have turned into aluminum sand (one possibility noted by our late oceanographer, Howard Alldred).
  • Identifiable components may still exist, but may be lost among the debris field of the Norwich City, if there is a debris field of the Norwich City.  5000 tons of tramp steamer went somewhere.
  • Identifiable components may be hidden by sand, coral, other vegetation, or silt.  I don't know what depth the equipment TIGHAR is using can "see" into sand, silt, or coral.
  • Identifiable components may lay outside TIGHAR's search area.
I'm sure that calculating the odds of success will be one of the hot topics all day long and well into the night.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 15   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