(10017) Sun 6 Jun 93 9:36p By: Jim Speiser To: All Re: Ball Lightning St: 10997> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A few weeks ago, someone stated that they sincerely doubted a phenomenon could exist for so long without leaving any physical evidence behind. So I went to the library and checked out a book on Ball Lightning. Stop me when this begins to sound familiar. ______________________ A direct discussion between opponents in this long controversy took place during a meeting of the French Academy of Sciences in 1890. A large number of luminous globes resembling ball lightning appeared in a tornado which was the subject of a report to the Academy. The glowing spheres entered dwellings through chimneys, bored circular holes in windows, and generally displayed the highly unusual behavior ascribed to ball lightning. Following the presentation of this communication a member of the Academy commented that the extraordinary properties attributed to ball lightning should be considered with reservations since it seemed the observers were suffering from optical illusions. In the heated discussion which followed the observations which had been made by uneducated peasants were declared of no value; whereupon the former Emperor of Brazil, a foreign member of the Academy attending the meeting, remarked that he too had seen ball lightning. [...] The alternate identities possible in specific cases of ball lightning supply an effective argument against its existence. A leading investigator in high-voltage research has commented that in many years of panoramic photography and observation of storms he has never seen ball lightning. In addition, his direct discussions with supposed witnesses of ball lightning always showed that the observations could be explained in terms of some reasonable alternative. The recurrence of such arguments exphasizes [sic] the importance of detailed and well recorded observations of ball lightning in nature. The collection and evaluation of observations has thus long been a major aspect of ball lightning studies. Such collections attempt to fill the role in this difficult problem which duplication of laboratory experiments ordinarily fulfills in science. In some instances observations by reliable witnesses have led to the reversal of a skeptical opinion on the reality of ball lightning originally based on questionable reports and the absence of convincing theoretical explanations. A notable exception is that of Humphreys, a leading American meteorologist. In initial editions of his book on atmospheric physics, Humphreys stated that the number and excellence of ball lightning observations exclude the view that it is an optical illusion. Consideration of 280 reports which he collected by personal inquiry caused him to reverse his opinion completely, and in the final edition of his work the traditional negative view is forcefully expressed. Humphreys decided that each observation could be conclusively explained by one of the alternatives mentioned previously or by "fixed and moving brush discharges." Humphreys did not publish the complete collection of his reports. While there may indeed have been many doubtful cases, recent surveys containing hundreds of observations include numerous examples of ball lightning exhibiting the unmistakable characteristics associated with it and not with the reasonable alternatives....Some observations were rather simply dismissed by Humphreys as optical illusions involving a persistent image, such as that reported by Loeb of typcial ball lightning which descended to earth, bounced up, and disappeared as lightning flashed and thunder sounded. Three decades after Humphreys' report Loeb reaverred his observation of ball lightning. In some incidents the possibility that St. Elmo's Fire or retention of a bright image by the eye were involved was specifically rejected by witnesses. [...] One of the most frequent criticisms of the observations which are an essential basis of our knowledge of ball lightning is that only people completely lacking in scientific training have seen these mysterious globes or, even further, that no professional observers of the weather and no authoritative investigators of thunderstorm electricity have ever seen ball lightning. This opinion, strongly reminiscent of the debate in the French Academy over three-quarters of a century ago, is completely incorrect. In addition to the report by Loeb (who would certainly be considered a qualified Electrician according to the meaning of the term in Franklin's time) the appearance of ball lightning was observed from a distance of thirty meters by a scientist form a German laboratory for atmospheric electricity and another by a staff member of the Tokyo Central Meteorological Observatory. Other incidents have been viewed by a meteorological observer, physicists, a chemist, a paleontologist, the director of a meteorological observatory, and several geologists. Astronomers, among those in all scientific fields, have witnessed and reported the largest number. In rare cases of the occurence of ball lightning the observer obtained a photograph which recorded the object he was viewing. As in other aspects of ball lightning studies the evidence provided by such photographs is often given inadequate consideration... The information at hand has led most meteorologists to disagree with the skeptical opinions on the reality of ball lightning which were expressed by the leading authorities Humphreys, Malan, and Schonland. There is no doubt, on the other hand, that many scientists, perhaps a majority of those in other fields, hold the negative view apparently as a result of the unavailabiity of the data on ball lightning as well as intuitive skepticism. THE DATA FROM OBSERVATIONS ARE OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE TO SCIENTIFIC STUDY LEADING TO A MORE SATISFACTORY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS PHENOMENON. [Emphasis added.] ___________________________ Singer, Stanley, "The Nature of Ball Lightning," pp 18-22 New York: Plenum Press, 1971 SBN 306-30494-5 * OLX 2.1 TD * "Live long and prosper, Spock" "I shall do neither" --- GrayQWKMail 2.0 * Origin: ParaNet Zeta-Reticuli 1:114/37.0 (FIDO) (9:1012/100) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (10997) Thu 10 Jun 93 6:50p By: Jacques Poulet To: Jim Speiser Re: Ball Lightning St: 10017<>11923 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I realy liked this excerpt. It accurately describe the current state of UFOlogy. Jacques --- * Origin: ParaNet EPSILON(sm), CHUCARA (Deux-Montagnes,Qc) (9:1012/7) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (11923) Tue 15 Jun 93 4:48p By: Stuart H. Ferguson To: All Re: Re: Ball Lightning St: <10997 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: shf@well.sf.ca.us (Stuart H. Ferguson) Date: 15 Jun 93 07:26:12 GMT Organization: The Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA Message-ID: Newsgroups: alt.paranet.skeptic +-- Jim Speiser writes about ball lightning: | A few weeks ago, someone stated that they sincerely doubted a phenomenon | could exist for so long without leaving any physical evidence behind. [ ... ] | The information at hand has led most meteorologists to disagree with the | skeptical opinions on the reality of ball lightning which were expressed by | the leading authorities Humphreys, Malan, and Schonland. There is no doubt, | on the other hand, that many scientists, perhaps a majority of those in | other fields, hold the negative view apparently as a result of the | unavailabiity of the data on ball lightning as well as intuitive skepticism. | THE DATA FROM OBSERVATIONS ARE OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE TO SCIENTIFIC STUDY | LEADING TO A MORE SATISFACTORY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS PHENOMENON. [Emphasis | added.] In the interests of equal time, let me point to another reference which shows the unreliability of anecdotal evidence. "Eugenics Revisited," by John Horgan, Scientific American, June 1993, pp 122-131. As I was reading this article, some of the proponents of Nature side of the "Nature vs. Nurture" debate began to sound strangely familiar. [...] No research in behaviorial genetics has been more eagerly embraced by the press than the identical-twin studies done at the University of Minnesota. [They studied identical twins raised seprately and estimated heriability of traits based on their similarities ...] The Minnesota group has reported finding a strong genetic contribution to practically all the traits it has examined. Whereas most previous studies have estimated the heritiabilitiy of intelligence as roughly 50 percent, [the Minnesota group] arrived at a figure of 70 percent. [...] The researchers have buttressed their statistical findings with anecdotes about "eerie," "bewitching" and "remarkable" parallels between reunited twins. One case involved Oskar, who was raised a Nazi in Czechoslovakia, and Jack, who was raised as a Jew in Trinidad. Both were reportedly wearing shirts with epaulets when they were reunited by the Minnesota group in 1979. They also both flushed the toilet before as well as after using it and enjoyed deliberately sneezing to startle people in elevators. Some other celebrated cases involved two British women who wore seven rings and named their firstborn sons Richard Andrew and Andrew Richard; two men who had both been named Tim, named their pet dogs Toy, married women named Linda, divorced them and remarried women named Betty; and two men who had become firefighters and drank Budweiser beer. Other twin researchers say the significance of these coincidences has been greatly exaggerated. Richard J. Rose of Indiana University [points out] that "if you bring together strangers who were born on the same day in the same country, and ask them to find similarities between them, you may find a lot of seemingly astounding coincidences." [...] In his investigations of other twin studies, [Leon J.] Kamin has shown that identical twins supposedly raised apart are often raised by members of their family or by unrelated families in the same neighborhood; some twins had extensive contact with each other while growing up. Kamin notes that the same may be true of some Minnesota twins. He notes, for example, that some news accounts suggested that Oskar and Jack and the two British women wearing seven rings were reunited for the first time when they arrived in Minnesota to be studied by Bouchard. Actually, both pairs of twins had met previously. Kamin has repetedly asked the Minnesota group for detailed case histories of its twins to determine whether it has underestimated contact and similarities in upbringing. "They've never responded," he says. [...] This is an excellent article for showing how difficult it is to do good science around controversial cultural issues. Anecdotal evidence is largely a retorical technique which does not belong in the toolkit of the honest scientist. | * OLX 2.1 TD * "Live long and prosper, Spock" "I shall do neither" "... for I have killed my captain." Spock -- Amok Time. -- Stuart Ferguson (shf@well.sf.ca.us) Prepare to Surge to Sublight Speed! --- ConfMail V4.00 * Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network (1:30163/150)