Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Wed Sep 30, 2020 11:27 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 4:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:20 pm
Posts: 50
PinecastleAAF wrote:
Quote:
Many things are "possible." However, the calculated probabilities of the bones belonging to anyone other than Amelia Earhart are vanishingly small.


That "vanishingly small" is an interesting choice of words. Where have I heard that before?

"Since the study statistics don't include the ethnic data points of the drowned sailors nor the data points from the pacific islanders that inhabit that geographical area its garbage."


Again. You are incorrect and your claims are extraordinary. To dismiss a rigorously peer reviewed paper, authored by a respected subject matter scientist, as "garbage" takes a special kind of, uh, "confidence." You seem to have not read the paper and, or, are not familiar with the statistical and probabilistic techniques employed by Jantz.

MOST REMARKABLY, you presume that the peer review process failed to reveal the most basic methodological failures and you presume the academic publishing house did not catch the failure of the peer review process.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 4:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:19 pm
Posts: 902
We got a live one here! Lots of familiar words and phrases being used to give false legitimacy to the odd 'research' being discussed.

And yet again, rational and mature discussion gets ambushed by angry, insulting and personal attacks.

Reminds me of....oh yeah.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 4:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:20 pm
Posts: 50
[quote="Mark Allen M"]I don't know about this Iowa61 character but it sounds like he may be 'punking' a few of you guys. Ironic of a new member to show up on WIX with his only contributions being that of a "cheerleader" for a Doctor who thinks he has the AE thing all figured out. I have not seen, read or heard even as much as a sliver of any concrete evidence that's either logical or scientifically valid concerning the alleged bones of AE. Science is not, nor is it ever, exact science when infused with theory and speculation. Even if you are a leading expert in your scientific field, you still can't make 2+2=5. This Doctor should know that at a minimum. To state that this is "most likely" the bones of AE is neither scientific nor concrete. It's irresponsible and incorrect. A "scientific background" or "AE savvyness" is not required to practice common sense.

1) I am not a "cheerleader" for anybody. I most definitely am a cheerleader for the Scientific Method. I am not interested in "punking" anyone and don't know how any of my postings could be interpreted as such.

2) If you need to read "concrete evidence" that's "scientifically valid" about ANY subject, the definitive resource is in peer-reviewed scientific papers published in respected scientific journals.

3) The Scientific Method is, by design and process, the only way to remove "theory and speculation."

4) Rigorous review and critique by scientists of equal stature to Dr. Jantz, AND an esteemed scientific journal affirm Jants's findings as both "scientific and concrete."

5) "Common sense" has no place in the Scientific Method WHATSOEVER.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 4:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:20 pm
Posts: 50
quemerford wrote:
We got a live one here! Lots of familiar words and phrases being used to give false legitimacy to the odd 'research' being discussed.

And yet again, rational and mature discussion gets ambushed by angry, insulting and personal attacks.

Reminds me of....oh yeah.


I presume you mean me...

First, the only thing I have any interest in "legitimizing" is the Scientific Method. And I say that with great humility, as the process most important to the advancement of humanity doesn't need my certification.

Second, if I have insulted anyone, I profusely apologize. It's not my desire or intent. If you'll point out where I have done so, I'll edit the offending comment immediately.


Third, if I haven't been "rational" and "mature," I've failed. And I'm sorry for that too.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 5:17 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm
Posts: 6604
iowa61 wrote:
Mark Allen M wrote:
I don't know about this Iowa61 character but it sounds like he may be 'punking' a few of you guys. Ironic of a new member to show up on WIX with his only contributions being that of a "cheerleader" for a Doctor who thinks he has the AE thing all figured out. I have not seen, read or heard even as much as a sliver of any concrete evidence that's either logical or scientifically valid concerning the alleged bones of AE. Science is not, nor is it ever, exact science when infused with theory and speculation. Even if you are a leading expert in your scientific field, you still can't make 2+2=5. This Doctor should know that at a minimum. To state that this is "most likely" the bones of AE is neither scientific nor concrete. It's irresponsible and incorrect. A "scientific background" or "AE savvyness" is not required to practice common sense.

1) I am not a "cheerleader" for anybody. I most definitely am a cheerleader for the Scientific Method. I am not interested in "punking" anyone and don't know how any of my postings could be interpreted as such.

2) If you need to read "concrete evidence" that's "scientifically valid" about ANY subject, the definitive resource is in peer-reviewed scientific papers published in respected scientific journals.

3) The Scientific Method is, by design and process, the only way to remove "theory and speculation."

4) Rigorous review and critique by scientists of equal stature to Dr. Jantz, AND an esteemed scientific journal affirm Jants's findings as both "scientific and concrete."

5) "Common sense" has no place in the Scientific Method WHATSOEVER.


1) You sure your not the good doctor himself in alter-ego? Starting to come across as such. And if not, is he aware that your trying way too hard to defend him?

2) The only Scientific Method you've been trying to defend is one that has zero basis for concrete factual truth. And yes that's correct ... zero!!!!. Nothing that you have stated or presented to this conversation has proven a thing, other than the fact that you are vigorously attempting to defend a method without concern for facts or truth. And I'm sorry but your doctors paper just doesn't cut it until he has concrete proof to add to it. It's really that simple, without concrete proof your Scientific Method is no more than a Scientific Theory presented by Dr. Jantz. The truth is all that matters and without the truth you only have theory and speculation.

3) The Scientific Method is, by design and process, the only way to remove "theory and speculation."? really? apparently that hasn't worked in this case.

4) "scientific and concrete."? I've been reading your Scientific remarks without the Concrete proof added. I'm an Architect and Developer and if I built a home with one and not the other I'd be neck high in a lawsuit, if not worse.

5) "Common sense" has no place in the Scientific Method WHATSOEVER ... neither does proof or truth and you certainly have proven that correct as your only concrete proof positive, I'll give you that.

The bottom line is you're trying way too hard to defend what cannot be defended. Scientific Method is not based on fact, truth or evidence, it's based on systematic observation, measurement, experiment, and the formulation of questions or hypotheses, it does not include concrete factual results but rather a scientists determination of whether his results are true or false to himself and his peers. There's a big difference there.

I suppose a question to you would be if your convinced that most of us (WIX members) cannot hold a candle to you and your fellow "Scientific Methodites" (yes I know that's not a word lol) then why are you bothering to post here. I would think after your second or third post you would have learned all you needed to know about our lack of scientific methodology .... or so you think :wink:

.... Worthless conversation, yet entertaining on your part I'll admit.

_________________
When you destroy children, you destroy infinite possibility.
Be kind and have courage.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 5:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:20 pm
Posts: 50
1) You sure your not the good doctor himself in alter-ego? Starting to come across as such. And if not, is he aware that your trying way too hard to defend him?

I have not tried to "defend" him in any way. I am pointing out that his is a valid scientific paper, rigorously peer-reviewed and published in an esteemed scientific journal.


2) The only Scientific Method you've been trying to defend is one that has zero basis for concrete factual truth. And yes that's correct ... zero!!!!. Nothing that you have stated or presented to this conversation has proven a thing, other than the fact that you are vigorously attempting to defend a method without concern for facts or truth. And I'm sorry but your doctors paper just doesn't cut it until he has concrete proof to add to it. It's really that simple, without concrete proof your Scientific Method is no more than a Scientific Theory presented by Dr. Jantz. The truth is all that matters and without the truth you only have theory and speculation.

I'm sorry. But your response indicates your lack of understanding of the Scientific Method as well as the scientific research paper publication process.

3) The Scientific Method is, by design and process, the only way to remove "theory and speculation."? really? apparently that hasn't worked in this case.

The peer reviewers and the editors of the scientific journal disagree with you.


4) "scientific and concrete."? I've been reading your Scientific remarks without the Concrete proof added. I'm an Architect and Developer and if I built a home with one and not the other I'd be neck high in a lawsuit, if not worse.

Again. No offense intended. But your experience as an architect and developer are not analogous nor relevant to the issue at hand.

5) "Common sense" has no place in the Scientific Method WHATSOEVER ... neither does proof or truth and you certainly have proven that correct as your only concrete proof positive, I'll give you that.

I apologize; I don't understand this statement.


The bottom line is you're trying way too hard to defend what cannot be defended. Scientific Method is not based on fact, truth or evidence, it's based on systematic observation, measurement, experiment, and the formulation of questions or hypotheses, it does not include concrete factual results but rather a scientists determination of whether his results are true or false to himself and his peers. There's a big difference there.

Again. No offense intended. But your remarks seem to indicate that you're not familiar with the definition of the Scientific Method.

I suppose a question to you would be if your convinced that most of us (WIX members) cannot hold a candle to you and your fellow "Scientific Methodites" (yes I know that's not a word lol) then why are you bothering to post here. I would think after your second or third post you would have learned all you needed to know about our lack of scientific methodology .... or so you think :wink:

My immediate aim is to express the truth: It's not appropriate nor valid for laypeople to dismiss a rigorously peer-reviewed scientific paper improperly. The only valid critique of Jantz's paper is one that follows the very well established procedures for doing so. My hope is you'll come to understand and embrace the Scientific Method.

Also, my understanding is that this is a "forum," not an "echo chamber."

.... Worthless conversation, yet entertaining on your part I'll admit.[/quote]

I think any opportunity to advance understanding of the Scientific Method is quite valuable, regardless of its entertainment value.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 5:57 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm
Posts: 6604
I embrace truth and concrete facts, none of which your Scientific Methodology has provided.
And the only echo chamber effect going on is your constant regurgitation of the same adulations for SM

I relinquish the conversation back to you. We agree to disagree and that’s good enough for me

_________________
When you destroy children, you destroy infinite possibility.
Be kind and have courage.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 10:12 pm
Posts: 266
iowa61 wrote:
JohnB wrote:
Iowa61

If you're looking for a spirited discussion on the bones theory, you'll want to join the conversation at the Aviation Mysteries forum.
Among the members there are experts who can discuss Jantz's work at length.

http://aviationmystery.com/index.php?to ... sg7485#new

If you're so intent on defending the group, are you willing to say why the Cross study has been so thoroughly attacked by RG?


Again. Thanks for the tip. Went over and read the "spirited" discussion. And it is that. Unfortunately, the forum participants do not have anything close to the expertise you suggested. They are not familiar with the Scientific Method. They do not grasp the significance of the probabilistic analysis. And they clearly have not read the paper.

One amusing note... somebody invited them to this forum to "challenge me."

Again. I AM NOT the issue at hand.

There is ONLY ONE paramount consideration in all this: Jantz's paper is a rigorously peer-reviewed work, published in a leading scientific journal. That represents the pinnacle of scientific rigor.

It is abundantly clear that many, if not all the participants in these forums do not appreciate what that means: Amateurs are going to have a significant challenge debunking the integrity and validity of Jantz if the best scientists in his field have not been able to do so. And that is especially true for those amateurs inclined to take potshots without the benefit of READING THE PAPER.


You are certainly full of yourself. And you might know that that forum you mention has two Archaeologists as Members, both published and peer reviewed. And if you are a shill for Gillespie you won't last long on these forums.

_________________
Doc Bob
aviationmystery.com


Last edited by Eagleflight on Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:20 pm
Posts: 50
Mark Allen M wrote:
I embrace truth and concrete facts, none of which your Scientific Methodology has provided.
And the only echo chamber effect going on is your constant regurgitation of the same adulations for SM

I relinquish the conversation back to you. We agree to disagree and that’s good enough for me


If we have a point of "agreement to disagree," it's in the definition of the Scientific Method. And that definition is not mine; it is a foundational tenet of science and observable reality.

There is only one way to establish "Truth and concrete facts." And that is the Scientific Method. There is no alternative that is rational, predictable, reviewable, repeatable and mathematically-based.

There is no "science" absent the Scientific Method. Any alternative is simply "belief."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 1:42 pm
Posts: 131
Location: Australia
So, summing up . . . we have somebody who used the “resources” provided by a very interested party to establish, using scientific methodology, that a collection of bones previously identified as male (and since “lost”) could be the bones of a woman but it would be prudent not to leap to that conclusion.

I mean, it’s just gotta be Amelia, right?

_________________
www.B17BlackJack.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 10:12 pm
Posts: 266
Steve Birdsall wrote:
So, summing up . . . we have somebody who used the “resources” provided by a very interested party to establish, using scientific methodology, that a collection of bones previously identified as male (and since “lost”) could be the bones of a woman but it would be prudent not to leap to that conclusion.

I mean, it’s just gotta be Amelia, right?


That has been his schtick since the 90's.

_________________
Doc Bob
aviationmystery.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:20 pm
Posts: 50
See response at 3:57


Last edited by iowa61 on Sat Mar 10, 2018 7:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:20 pm
Posts: 50
You are certainly full of yourself. And you might know that that forum you mention has two Archaeologists as Members, both published and peer reviewed. And if you are a shill for Gillespie you won't last long on these forums.[/quote]



I am surprised at the hostility and invective I seem to have provoked merely by my advocacy for the Scientific Method.

I'm aware of the status of those two members. And I don't doubt they are published and peer-reviewed. I actually hold them to a higher standard than I do well-intentioned and passionate laypeople.

Those two members are impugning the credentials, records, and integrity of a scholar in a field of specialization different than theirs. They are simultaneously impugning the credentials, records and integrity of the blind peer reviewers in the same field--whom they don't even know. They are simultaneously impugning the record, reputation, and integrity of the esteemed scientific journal to which they have never contributed.

Those are not trivial libels--and at the very least unbecoming of the scholars with whom they originated.

There are very well established methods and paths for critique of published papers. Frankly, specious criticism in popular online forums is not one of them. I would expect any scholar to at least acknowledge such.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 7:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 10:12 pm
Posts: 266
iowa61

Has it ever occured to you that not all scientists agree with each other? Have you read the peer reviewed paper from a renowned Emeritus Professor concerning the bones that refutes the Jantz paper?

_________________
Doc Bob
aviationmystery.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earhart bones
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 7:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:20 pm
Posts: 50
Eagleflight wrote:
iowa61

Has it ever occured to you that not all scientists agree with each other? Have you read the peer reviewed paper from a renowned Emeritus Professor concerning the bones?



Yes, I've read the paper thoroughly--that is Jantz's paper. I'm not aware of any published critique. Jantz's is very impressive to me, though I have to qualify that I'm a layperson. I'm also impressed with its publication in an esteemed journal with an excellent reputation.

Certainly!!! Scientists disagree with great regularity and often with great energy. Energetic, informed, and well-supported disagreement is fundamental to the success of the Scientific Method. Further, there are extremely well-developed and documented protocols and paths to formalize that disagreement in a manner consistent with the Scientific Method.

What I am experiencing in this forum so far is some kind of personal antipathy toward a person and organization, who, while referenced in Jantz's paper, are not its author, nor the peer reviewers, nor associated with the scientific journal in which it is published.

I have yet to see any informed critique of Jantz's work, presented in a manner consistent with good scholarship. Even more disappointingly, I'm not yet seeing an appreciation for the importance of the Scientific Method.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aeronut, Google [Bot], kennsmithf2g, warbirdcrazy and 19 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group