Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Down

Author Topic: Emily Sikuli and Nessie  (Read 51890 times)

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 636
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #60 on: May 21, 2012, 07:11:33 AM »

Malcolm

I think were folks get wrapped around the axle is with your use of the word hypothesis.  You say things like "Show me the data that proves the hypothesis and I'll accept it." 

But isn't a hypothesis by definition an as of yet unproven theory, so to speak?  If we show you proof, then it is no longer a hypothesis, so what you ask is an impossible feat, the equivalent to a scientific Catch 22.   

If I look up the definition, I find things like:

1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis)  or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.

3. the antecedent of a conditional proposition.

4. a mere assumption or guess.

All of which are very tentative in nature, as none are presumed to be proven.  If they were proven, it would no longer be a hypothesis. 

So I think much of the frustration that is being expressed by the Forum over your posts stems from this disconnect between your asking for proof before accepting the hypothesis, when the rest of us are still using the term much more in the way it is defined above as an unproven set of propositions to explain the phenomena we think may be related as a means to "guide the investigation". 

If we have proof, it is proof, and no longer hypothetical.  And if it is a hypothesis, an unproven thing, how can you ask for proof before accepting it?  Doesn't make sense.

Perhaps you can illuminate your use of the term.

Andrew

« Last Edit: May 21, 2012, 07:15:08 AM by Andrew M McKenna »
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #61 on: May 21, 2012, 09:13:44 AM »

I think Andrew and Jeff N make excellent points. Malcolm is asking us for "proof" of the hypothesis which cannot be provided as TIGHAR has never claimed the hypothesis to be true. It is only a hypothesis at this time. Andrew is right when he says it is an unproven theory. It only stops being a hypothesis when there is proof.  What do we call it then?  A proven theory or fact.

I think the main point is that no one in these forum threads is saying the information contained within is all fact.  Many go out of their way to state this is either their personal opinion or assumption and acknowledge that we may never know the whole truth.  But they see the individual pieces of some real artifacts and reports and have made up their own mind that this is worthy of pursuit. 

I get the feeling from Malcolm's posts, and these are my feelings only, not stated by Malcolm, that he thinks the pursuit of the answer to the TIGHAR hypothesis is not worth the effort.

If not worthy of pursuit by TIGHAR then who should pursue the truth?  Who would, based on Malcolm's stated comments on needing facts over theories?   If we have no curiosity or objectivity as stated by Jeff N then what would stir us as a race to get off our butts and ask the universal question "WHY?".   That's what TIGHAR does for us. It gives us a method to ask WHY AE and FN disappeared?  You have TIGHAR and the modern age of the Internet to give us the collective group "think" opportunity to express our views with similarly minded individuals. Before the Internet it was up to individuals, with conviction of their beliefs, to prove or disprove them without the collective group opportunity.  Christopher Columbus is a great example of the old style of proving your theory.  I think TIGHAR's methodology is the new way.

To be able to share ideas, comments, assumptions, etc., with people from all over the world is not something I take for granted. I'm just old enough to have watched black and white tv and watched man land on the moon.  I appreciate this forum every day in how it allows me to interact with similarly minded people.

And, It must include nay Sayers who test the conviction and beliefs that we hold to keep us honest, and inwardly make us think harder.

My inner thoughts for the day.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #62 on: May 21, 2012, 09:29:26 AM »

DR. Malcolm --I think you finally got it!! The whole purpose of the expedition is to PROVE a hypothesis---that being possible aircraft wreckage on and off the reef of Nikumaroro. The way TIGHAR is going to PROVE it, is to GO THERE and LOOK, possibly bringing up something Identifible.
IF it shows it isnt aircraft wreckage, it just proves that particular hypothesis isnt correct, not necessarity the enitre theory.
Tom
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #63 on: May 21, 2012, 06:36:46 PM »

DR. Malcolm --I think you finally got it!!

Tom, I find to be both patronizing and demeaning that you make a statement that now claims that I finally get it. The fact is that I have always argued what you claim I now seem to have discovered. If you find people questioning what you hold to be self-evident facts to be challenging then all I can say is that is the way the world works. 

Enjoy your trip to the conference.
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #64 on: May 23, 2012, 10:13:39 AM »

Wow--WELL sir---I really didnt think I was being patronizing or demeaning. If so---appologies for not knowing the difference. I guess I look at things from a different perspective that you do. I look at the theory, and the 'evidence' and step back and see if there are other alternatives. We have found several. That doesnt mean that any one person is right. No one here that I know of has stated to PROVE to me the evidence and I'll accept it, other than you. Many members of this forum agree to disagree on the landing theory, and the potential aircraft wreckage. I thought that was what discussion was all about. Forgive me if I'm wrong.
I guess I find all of this a challenge, including the search for answers.
Several us if ARE going to the symposium, to look at 'evidence', to talk to the experts, several of which have BEEN THERE, and many more that have contributed their time, and expertise to this project. Some of us, just want to see for ourselves what the deal is. Trust me, i did have better things to do with both my time and money. But as a member of TIGHAR, I felt I needed to support them as I could. And if I have a different than others, thats ok---I'm learning.
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #65 on: May 23, 2012, 11:33:05 AM »

To all forum readers, Tighar members, and all the consultants contributing to this wonderful project, and RIC--:
Let me appologize for my antagonistic attitude directed towards Dr. Malcolm in several threads on this forum. Its not that I dont respect him, his work, or his theories. I do, as I respect everyones opinions here, especially those with the inside knowledge of what really happened. But when a conversation certainly becomes very pointed and one sided, 'patronizing and demeaning', its probably time for me to just shut up, come to DC and see for myself what the evidence really is. This way I may have the opprotunity to speak with the real experts, and judge for myself the validity of the TIGHAR Hypothesis. Getting into a war of words with someone I dont know, over something that isnt proven one way or the other is really adolesent, and detracts from the great work put forth by TIGHAR, and specific others on this forum.
To those of you that ARE going to DC----I will appologise in person when I see you. To those that arent, please accept it in the context that it was intended.
Tom
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

john a delsing

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Minnesota Johnny D.
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #66 on: May 23, 2012, 09:43:39 PM »

Dr. McKay,  I don't believe any TIGHAR member has meet to insult you, or your views, in any manner, altho some of the hastely written posts,  may at times read in that direction. Not only is your scientific knowledge very great, you also have wonderful communication skills, which sorry to say, many of us, especially me, do not have. So when we hurriedly try to type out some thoughts, those thoughts many times, are not near as clearly stated as we had hoped. I don't think that there is an active member in this group that has not had their thought process stemulated by your posts. Thank you sir for taking time to share some of your views and ideas that you have gained through the many years. This group is much the better because of your participation.
The Earth is Full
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #67 on: May 23, 2012, 09:50:53 PM »

Dr. McKay ... This group is much the better because of your participation.

Thanks John - all I do is ask questions, which is what I was trained to do. Sometimes the artifacts provide an answer and sometimes they don't. And that is a problem I freely acknowledge.  :)   
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #68 on: May 24, 2012, 09:18:55 AM »

I certainly agree with both statements. i see the artifacts as the result of the theory. (after you find them)
so, if the artifacts dont add up the theory, then you have to believe the results, if they are repeatable. At least thats the way I was trained.
The Titanic didnt sink in the Pacific. How do we know? Because Dr. Ballard had GPS tracking and found it, photgraphed it, and has some artifacts from it.
As far as I'm concerned, all theories are open, until evidence or artifacts show otherwise. So, to me anyway , seem more valid than others. I'm inclined to believe the landing theory, but not necessarily that AE perished on Niku. I'm not quite there yet. I'd like to think the 'wreckage' we see is the Electra, but inlight of other thinkgs that have transpired over the past month, I'll wait to see what Ric & Co find on the expedition. You all know what I would like to see---i've said it here many times. Be the reality is we dont know for sure---so lets go look and see.
Whatever is turned up will be hard evidence, or artifacts which will tell us whether the landing theory has merit.
Dr. Malcolm, do you agree?
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #69 on: May 24, 2012, 10:10:30 AM »

Well I enjoy Dr M and GLP's participation (I also miss Mr Van Asten but maybe we should't go there)
Logged

Adam Marsland

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #70 on: May 24, 2012, 12:53:26 PM »

Not directed at Malcolm specifically, but I love it when someone asks a critical question that gets everyone thinking and rethinking and moving in new directions.  I get a little impatient when people raise issues that have already been asked and answered by TIGHAR -- not conclusively, but certainly credibly -- as if they were new and/or unaddressed.  I do have to remind myself that not everybody has been through this site as obsessively as I and some other folks have (my first encounter with TIGHAR was back in 2002 when I had a boring job and three months to kill), but I do wish folks would critically think their own hypotheses and criticisms as much as they do TIGHAR's (and as much as TIGHAR does itself, which is why they have earned my respect).  When someone comes up with a new idea or "fly in the ointment" that isn't just based on what the person thinks someone "would have done" or genuinely hasn't been raised before, I find it pretty exciting, myself.  Even if it doesn't jibe with TIGHAR's ideas.
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Emily Sikuli and Nessie
« Reply #71 on: May 24, 2012, 06:50:57 PM »

I certainly agree with both statements. i see the artifacts as the result of the theory. (after you find them)
etc.
Dr. Malcolm, do you agree?

I have replied in the other thread Tom.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Up
 

Copyright 2018 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 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP