Re: Ball Lightning and "experimenter regress"

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: "Bob (R.A.) Jones" <a1accounting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi all,  (Terry this is my last post on this very off topic thread)

I had hoped that I had explained my point of view and in general how science
is usually conducted.
By its very nature science is skeptical. It demands verifiable and
repeatable proof.

By definition (of provable repeatable experimental verifiable phenomena) BL
does not exist because its not provable repeatable experimentally verifiable
phenomena.
This is a bit like a not guilty verdict.  Its does not mean that the
defendant did not do it only that it was not proven that he did. The case
has been dismissed with mild predigest.
The Plaintiff if free to bring his case again if his obtains additional.
If you happen to have the powers of an all seeing all knowing deity you
could say with certainty if BL exists or not.
I have no such powers (and nobody else does either) so I have to rely on
evidence i.e. the usual (main stream) standard  of provable repeatable
experimental verifiable proof.
This has nothing to do with my imagination.  If I gave an opinion on (or
imagined or guessed ) what the probability of BL existing is I would offer
odds of 1 in 1000.

Somebody else is of cause free to pick a different standard of proof.
But there would seem to be little point in exchanging I do and I don't
beliefs without defining that standard proof.
Without an agreed standard of proof it an open question. Its just people
exchanging their feelings or gut instincts.
Yes it may be fun but we will never reach a consensus, a common point of
view.
Which is precisely what science/physics is. A majority point of view, a
collective belief mostly (even physicists have feelings) based on
observation and experimental evidence. Observation and  evidence that is
available at that time.

As to how we discover an existing theory is wrong. Its simple a  provable
repeatable experimental verifiable observations against it is all that's
needed.
Call it the Gorilla problem if prefer and yes it rejects a few good
observations  along with all the false ones. It even accepts some
observation which it later rejects (cold fusion).

Eye witness accounts even from scientists simple do not achieve the level of
proof required particularly when the observation do not mesh with new
theories.
These days in the USA there are video cameras almost every where. Apparently
the buses in Orland have six!!!! Most shops, businesses and car parks have
them.
They are at almost every major intersection and along all the main roads.
At the moment in Florida we are getting huge thunderstorms every day with
tens of thousands of strikes.
Why have I not seen  a video of ball lightning on the news?  I revise my
estimate of the odds to less than1 in10^6. Referring the type of BL that
pops out of say a hand set drifts a round and vanishes.

Malcolm's BL at the base of a transmitter tower that I would give say a even
chance of being valid.

 Robert (R. A.) Jones
A1 Accounting, Inc., Fl
407 649 6400
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 10:19 PM
Subject: Ball Lightning and "experimenter regress"


> Original poster: William Beaty <billb@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>  > Original poster: "Bob (R.A.) Jones" <a1accounting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>  > In my opinion the biggest mystery of Ball Lightning is how many people
claim
>  > to have seen it and how many people believe it exists.
>
> This is unclear.  Are you imagining that BL doesn't exist?
>
> When cutting-edge science is involved, there is a strange problem
> involving circular reasoning.  The problem occurs because a new scientific
> theory is created in order to explain observations ...yet any observations
> which conflict with existing theories are usually viewed with suspicion
> and rejected.
>
> If odd evidence is rejected because it goes against theory, how then can
> we discover if theories are wrong and need changing?  On the other hand,
> if we accept odd evidence and use it to update scientific theories, how
> can we detect any errors in the evidence, and keep from changing the
> theories when there is no need?
>
> We could call this "the gorilla problem."
>
> When people reported seeing large black apes in Africa, they were
> ridiculed.  This was back in 1700, when Africa had been pretty much
> explored, yet no "gorillas" had been found, and the experts knew that
> reports of these so-called "gorillas" came only from hoaxers or crazy
> people.  But then some years passed and a few gorillas were captured, and
> the status of gorillas suddenly changed.  Suddenly the experts stopped
> ignoring the eyewitness accounts, and new reports of sightings were used
> to strengthen the theory that "gorillas exist."
>
> First:
>
>     1. Earlier theory:  there is no solid evidence for gorillas, therefore
>        gorillas are delusions and fantasy, they don't exist
>
>     2. Rejected evidence: eyewitness sightings of gorillas, verbal
accounts
>        of gorillas shot by hunters, etc.   Since gorillas don't exist, we
>        reject any evidence that says otherwise.
>
>     3. End result:  theory is used to reject genuine (but weak) evidence.
>
>
> Next:
>
>     1. Powerful evidence appears: living gorillas are exhibited in zoos
>
>     2. Rejected theory: "gorillas are delusions and fantasy."
>        Since we can go see a gorilla in the zoo, we know that anyone who
>        disbelieves in gorillas is wrong, and now there is no reason to
>        ridicule eyewitness accounts of gorilla sightings.
>
>     3. End result: strong evidence is used to reject earlier theory.
>
>
> A similar problem occurs whenever an experimenter makes a measurement, but
> the expected value of the measurement is not known.  If you read the
> voltmeter, yet have no "theory" that predicts an expected voltage, then
> you can't be certain whether the meter is broken, or whether some other
> mistake was made.  But then your goal is to create a new theory to explain
> your voltage readings.  But then you need a theory before you can be
> confident that your voltage readings are correct.  But how can you be
> confident in any theory based on the questionable voltage readings you
> took?  But you can only create new theories based on evidence such as
> voltage readings!  An endless circle.
>
> This problem is called "The Experimenters Regress."
>
>    http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%22experimenter+regress%22
>
> Science isn't as simple as most people believe, no?
>
>
>
> (((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
> William J. Beaty                            SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
> billb at amasci com                         http://amasci.com
> EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
> Seattle, WA  206-789-0775    unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
>
>