Missing 411: Really Strange

[ChrisinHove]

I recall reading about a hiker on the Appalachian Trail who stepped off it a few yards simply to take a leak, couldn’t find her way back and died as a consequence. Awful. I think of the times I’ve been lost in fog, stuck on a rock face or somewhere and recall how easy it is to become agitated and a little panicky.

There should be another statistic, really, relating to the number of people found, or disappearances explained, just for perspective.

[James Y]

I recall reading about a hiker on the Appalachian Trail who stepped off it a few yards simply to take a leak, couldn’t find her way back and died as a consequence. Awful. I think of the times I’ve been lost in fog, stuck on a rock face or somewhere and recall how easy it is to become agitated and a little panicky.

There should be another statistic, really, relating to the number of people found, or disappearances explained, just for perspective.

There are several cases he’s covered in which the missing were found alive, both children and adults. The vast majority cannot remember what happened to them, or how and why they went missing in the first place, even if they were missing for days.

Jim

[The Deacon]

I recall reading about a hiker on the Appalachian Trail who stepped off it a few yards simply to take a leak, couldn’t find her way back and died as a consequence. Awful. I think of the times I’ve been lost in fog, stuck on a rock face or somewhere and recall how easy it is to become agitated and a little panicky.

There should be another statistic, really, relating to the number of people found, or disappearances explained, just for perspective.

Chris, I can't find any figures on the number that get lost and are found, but just to give you some sense of scale, the total area covered by US National Parks is around 81,000 square miles. That's about the same size as England and Scotland combined. An average of over 250 MILLION visitors enter those parks each year. Obviously, that means some people visit multiple parks and/or make multiple visits to a single park, but you get the idea.

EDITED TO ADD: Just found it, seems to average around 3500 S&R missions per year in the parks. So, if around 100 of those are unsuccessful about 97% result in the successful location of the missing person, either alive or dead.

[ChrisinHove]

That is a big area to get lost in!

Next question: of those 3400 “solved” cases per annum are there any recorded - and ideally corroborated - cases of lucky escapes from yeti’s, aliens, or other unusual phenomena?

[FeistyKat]

Obviously, the scientific method is a time tested methodology that has evaded your understanding.

It hasn't evaded my understanding at all.

If science can definitively prove something, that's great, at least until a conflicting study comes along and leaves everyone scratching their heads.

But science fails far too often, to the detriment of society.

For years we were told of the dangers of cholesterol in our diet & thousands (millions?) of people were prescribed statins with all their wonderful side effects.

Then the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee decided that cholesterol in the diet "need no longer be considered a 'nutrient of concern'".

I would guess that money played a huge factor in their original decision.

In that vein I will amend my original assertion: The problem is not the scientific method, but how it is wielded in our society.

[MichaelScott]

So, the scientific method has failed us so miserably that we are still living in huts and lighting the world only by fire. Got it.

[FeistyKat]

So, the scientific method has failed us so miserably that we are still living in huts and lighting the world only by fire. Got it.

Where is my flying car? Why can't I buy a jet pack? When will I be able to vacation on the moon?

So, basically...yes.

[VooDooChild]

So, the scientific method has failed us so miserably that we are still living in huts and lighting the world only by fire. Got it.

Where is my flying car? Why can't I buy a jet pack? When will I be able to vacation on the moon?

So, basically...yes.

Physics, money/economy, logistics, safety, and several other factors are the reasons you dont have those things.

Ask any engineer on the planet to design an optimum flying car and they will build a plane or helicopter depending on what is needed. Drone tech and advances in science/technology/materials could possibly give individuals flying cars in the future, but the current materials arent cheap enough, and the current energy sources arent good enough.

Jet packs are not feasible. The better jet pack you build, the closer you get to building a rocket/jet. You would either end up in a Wile E Coyote scenario, or build something much less efficient than a powered paraglider (paramotor). Which is pretty darn close to a realistic equivalent of individual modern flight. You are free to buy one.

Rich civilians have already paid to go to space. You can do this as well.

[MichaelScott]

Obviously, the scientific method is a time tested methodology that has evaded your understanding.

It hasn't evaded my understanding at all.

If science can definitively prove something, that's great, at least until a conflicting study comes along and leaves everyone scratching their heads.

But science fails far too often, to the detriment of society.

For years we were told of the dangers of cholesterol in our diet & thousands (millions?) of people were prescribed statins with all their wonderful side effects.

Then the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee decided that cholesterol in the diet "need no longer be considered a 'nutrient of concern'".

I would guess that money played a huge factor in their original decision.

In that vein I will amend my original assertion: The problem is not the scientific method, but how it is wielded in our society.

you are speaking of when the scientific method, doing what it should, refines or replaces existing hypotheses or theories with better ones. as to the method itself, let me help you.

“The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.[1][2][3]” —Wickipedia (one of many sources.

[The Deacon]

So, the scientific method has failed us so miserably that we are still living in huts and lighting the world only by fire. Got it.

Where is my flying car? Why can't I buy a jet pack? When will I be able to vacation on the moon?

So, basically...yes.

The people who made those predictions were futurists. Some may have been scientists, but they were all speculating. I will, however, agree that scientists have a disturbing tendency to present current knowledge as fact. It may sound petty but, while I once had a lot of faith in science, my acceptance of "scientific facts" took an enormous hit when Pluto was stripped of it's planethood. It brought everything I'd been taught in every science course I took into question because, if scientists could be wrong about that for so long, they could be wrong about **** near anything. Heck, some branches, like meteorology and nutritional science are wrong often enough to be considered farcical and I'm convinced that others, like psychology and psychiatry will one day take their rightful place alongside phrenology. orgone therapy, and palmistry as cruel hoaxes perpetrated by charlatans. I'm at a point now where there is nothing I fully accept unless I can test it for myself but there are still some things, like ghosts, bigfoot, chupacabra, and aliens visiting our planet, that I'm reasonably certain do not exist.

[FeistyKat]

The people who made those predictions were futurists. Some may have been scientists, but they were all speculating. I will, however, agree that scientists have a disturbing tendency to present current knowledge as fact. It may sound petty but, while I once had a lot of faith in science, my acceptance of "scientific facts" took an enormous hit when Pluto was stripped of it's planethood. It brought everything I'd been taught in every science course I took into question because, if scientists could be wrong about that for so long, they could be wrong about **** near anything. Heck, some branches, like meteorology and nutritional science are wrong often enough to be considered farcical and I'm convinced that others, like psychology and psychiatry will one day take their rightful place alongside phrenology. orgone therapy, and palmistry as cruel hoaxes perpetrated by charlatans. I'm at a point now where there is nothing I fully accept unless I can test it for myself but there are still some things, like ghosts, bigfoot, chupacabra, and aliens visiting our planet, that I'm reasonably certain do not exist.

Well, I was being facetious, but you make a good point.

As for Pluto, that was a bit of a kick in the groin for me. The guy who decided Pluto wasn't a planet said his daughter was very disappointed. He should have changed the criteria for planets instead.

Orgone? I thought that was a misspelling, but I found a link for an "Orgone EMF Protection Pyramid". I would like to point out that the Great Pyramid of Giza has provided very good protection for Khufu. For his body, anyway.

Phrenology? That's going a bit far. I measured all my children shortly after birth and they've all become exceptional adults, as expected.

[The Mastiff]

Orgone? I thought that was a misspelling, but I found a link for an "Orgone EMF Protection Pyramid". I would like to point out that the Great Pyramid of Giza has provided very good protection for Khufu. For his body, anyway.

I thought his body and tomb were never found. He wasn't in the pyramid. His relation to the pyramid came from finding a (one) cartouche (sp?) on a repair above the kings chamber.

[MichaelScott]

So, the scientific method has failed us so miserably that we are still living in huts and lighting the world only by fire. Got it.

Where is my flying car? Why can't I buy a jet pack? When will I be able to vacation on the moon?

So, basically...yes.

The people who made those predictions were futurists. Some may have been scientists, but they were all speculating. I will, however, agree that scientists have a disturbing tendency to present current knowledge as fact. It may sound petty but, while I once had a lot of faith in science, my acceptance of "scientific facts" took an enormous hit when Pluto was stripped of it's planethood. It brought everything I'd been taught in every science course I took into question because, if scientists could be wrong about that for so long, they could be wrong about **** near anything. Heck, some branches, like meteorology and nutritional science are wrong often enough to be considered farcical and I'm convinced that others, like psychology and psychiatry will one day take their rightful place alongside phrenology. orgone therapy, and palmistry as cruel hoaxes perpetrated by charlatans. I'm at a point now where there is nothing I fully accept unless I can test it for myself but there are still some things, like ghosts, bigfoot, chupacabra, and aliens visiting our planet, that I'm reasonably certain do not exist.

That, fundamentally is how the scientific methods works. I suggest a recent, basic book on the history of science to illustrate the process.

[The Deacon]

That, fundamentally is how the scientific methods works. I suggest a recent, basic book on the history of science to illustrate the process.

Hard to respond, as I have no idea which part of my post you were referencing.

[wrdwrght]

The scientific method can prove what is NOT true, NOT what is true. Get enough of what is NOT true, you can interpolate, thus predict, what might be true, but that, in the scientific method, is what is called a hypothesis, not a prediction. Scientists who predict what is true have taken off their science-hat and become like the rest of us, except better informed...

[MichaelScott]

That, fundamentally is how the scientific methods works. I suggest a recent, basic book on the history of science to illustrate the process.

Hard to respond, as I have no idea which part of my post you were referencing.

I was referring to your claims about facts, not so much about method. wrdwrt got it right. Apologies for confusion.