Fact Checking Nelson's "Doors Of Death" light aircraft near death experience

[Res Ipsa]

But, are you just going to criticize my personal shortcomings or respond to the substance of my post?

Ah, criticize personal shortcomings it is.

I see my irony went over your head, so I'm happy to clarify. I was noting the irony of you complaining about someone noting your personal shortcomings, given your multiple, massive missals throughout this thread, noting in excruciating and repeated detail, many, many other people's personal shortcomings, actual, imagined, and stereotyped.

No, it didn’t. And I called it right. More personal criticism instead of substance. But congratulations on your successful derail, capped with an excellent tu quoque.

[Res Ipsa]

I'm inclined to see it Lem's way, assuming I'm reading as intended; ironically, she sums up to pretty much what honor has said, that the incident may be unfalsifiable.

Normally, if something is unfalsifiable, that isn't good for credibility. Bought suggested on the Witnesses thread, that John Whitmer wrote a retraction to his witness. Honor said he doubted it. But let's face it, it may be unfalsifiable. So should we comb the shelves of LDS libraries looking for it, and until we can definitively make the ultimate absence of evidence case, we tentatively accept the alternative Whitmer scenario?

to make that point differently, first recap: Honor said that the critics here wish to falsify this incident, but it may be unfalsifiable. (hopefully I didn't misrepresent you, Honor)

I'm not sure we're trying to falsify, and namely, falsify via argument from silence, so much as taking an initial position of high doubt, highlight the lack of evidence for the positive case. Given the dramatic telling, namely, an engine fire with oil spraying all over the side of the plane, and the pilot nosediving to put the fire out, pulling up right before the plane went fireball; and there's other civilians on board, it's not a war, and not a third world country, it's happy valley -- there are many channels by which a scrap of corroborating evidence could surface, especially given the story involves the current prophet and the telling is increasing over time. A key channel would be some kind of official report or a newspaper mention.

Recall Carl Sagan's Dragon. So what's the difference here?

Yes, you read me as intended, Gad, ironic or not, it really does seem as though there is very little actual disagreement going on. And much like Sagan's parable, every time a reason to not believe in the dragon is stated, another way is proposed to bypass it.

(and since when does autocorrect change Sagan into Satan, by the way? )

Where do see this the process with the dragon that you describe?

ETA, yeah I don’t know why autocorrect has a grudge against Carl.

[honorentheos]

Where do see this the process with the dragon that you describe?

This is one of my main questions in this thread as well.

Supposing the dragon represents an extraordinary claim that demands extraordinary evidence to be believable, where is the dragon here? It seems it's being used to describe skepticism in the conclusion the story is a lie because evidence of the flight hasn't been found. But that's sloppy thinking and a misuse of the analogy created by Sagan. Is the dragon that Nelson was on a flight where something happened that formed the basis for the story? How is that extraordinary? Is it the dramatized story shared in the later accounts? Who here is defending that?

[Lem]

This was purportedly a life-changing event for Nelson. If his memory was foggy about this or that specific detail, he should leave them out. Or just admit he doesn't remember that detail. If he retells a specific detail, he owes his audience the courtesy of being accurate and truthful. Otherwise, it's no better than Dunn. Nelson's account is very specific and not only that, he makes comments that impress on the listener's/reader's mind that the vividness of his memory is important for the real point he's making about the vividness of clarity he felt regarding peace in his life's choices, temple sealing, and all of that. Specificity is important to his story because it's the specifics that make his story real.

Good point. Individual stories of Dunn's could be excused similarly, but the sum total was an approach that felt very offensive to many who found out after years of sharing his 'faith-promoting' stories.

[honorentheos]

This was purportedly a life-changing event for Nelson. If his memory was foggy about this or that specific detail, he should leave them out. Or just admit he doesn't remember that detail. If he retells a specific detail, he owes his audience the courtesy of being accurate and truthful. Otherwise, it's no better than Dunn. Nelson's account is very specific and not only that, he makes comments that impress on the listener's/reader's mind that the vividness of his memory is important for the real point he's making about the vividness of clarity he felt regarding peace in his life's choices, temple sealing, and all of that. Specificity is important to his story because it's the specifics that make his story real.

Good point. Individual stories of Dunn's could be excused similarly, but the sum total was an approach that felt very offensive to many who found out after years of sharing his 'faith-promoting' stories.

The bolded underlined section above is what is getting me about this thread. I think this is good advice for just about everyone.

[Lem]

This is one of my main questions in this thread as well.

Supposing the dragon represents an extraordinary claim that demands extraordinary evidence to be believable, where is the dragon here? It seems it's being used to describe skepticism in the conclusion the story is a lie because evidence of the flight hasn't been found. But that's sloppy thinking and a misuse of the analogy created by Sagan. Is the dragon that Nelson was on a flight where something happened that formed the basis for the story? How is that extraordinary? Is it the dramatized story shared in the later accounts? Who here is defending that?

You would be wrong in your assumptions. I have spelled this out several times regarding the process in this thread. Sagan's story fits very well.

[honorentheos]

This is one of my main questions in this thread as well.

Supposing the dragon represents an extraordinary claim that demands extraordinary evidence to be believable, where is the dragon here? It seems it's being used to describe skepticism in the conclusion the story is a lie because evidence of the flight hasn't been found. But that's sloppy thinking and a misuse of the analogy created by Sagan. Is the dragon that Nelson was on a flight where something happened that formed the basis for the story? How is that extraordinary? Is it the dramatized story shared in the later accounts? Who here is defending that?

You would be wrong in your assumptions. I have spelled this out several times regarding the process in this thread. Sagan's story fits very well.

Hi Lem,

I hope things are well with you and your family. For the sake of discussion, could you do it one more time for me here since I didn't assume anything but instead asked? I really don't think the dragon analogy works here. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong but the way to show it is to point out the extraordinary claim that deserves extraordinary evidence. If that isn't what is meant by a dragon, well, that's an issue with Sagan.

[honorentheos]

Let me put this a different way.

For the sake of discussion let's say there are two positions being argued here.

One is that Nelson made up the story. The other is we haven't found evidence that makes this more probable than some version of the event happened.

To test these ideas the group looks into news accounts from the period being considered, aviation incident and accident records, and pursues other ideas for testing the facts of the story. What comes up is the following:

- No news articles describing a small engine aircraft experiencing any of the major problems described in the story can be found after reasonable searching.

- Research into aviation records calls into question that official record of this kind of incident, or one on which the story might be based, would currently exist given the record keeping standards fail to make it reasonable that this record should be readily found.

If we look to the story, it is basically a story of a doctor/non-pilot sharing his claimed experience in what appeared to be a potentially life-endangering event.

Given the above, is it meaningful that no news articles exist that document the event described? Yeah. That's evidence against it being factual. It is compelling or conclusive? Not even close.

Do the limitations on the availability of official aviation records impact the level of probability the lack of a report precludes the event being an actual event? Yes, they do. Knowing that official aviation records are unlikely to be available for the types of incidents that may have occurred mean there are facts likely never to be known here.

Are there a range of likely scenarios that might have occurred that would have planted the event into Nelson's mind as meaningful that do not match his recollection? Yeah. In fact, that's almost certainly the case. He isn't omniscient and lacked the skill set to accurately access whatever might have been going on if it in fact did happen.

Lastly, supposing the story if a lie, then what? Nelson turns out to be even more untrustworthy than he is knowing he is the leader of the large ponzi-scheme tax avoiding widow robbing hedge fund? I don't know. It wouldn't move the needle for me anyway. If it's true, then what? Nelson turns out to be pretty calm in the face of death. Wow. A surgeon turned out to be cool under fire. Who would have guessed.

I suppose if we want to start a critical version of the Greatest Guesser article proving how much of a lying liar-faced liar Nelson is we could assign numbers and do some maths and call it the greatest find in Mormon current events in the last twelve days or something. Or, we could look at it with a more measured response and present the evidence, the lack there of, the alternative possibilities, and the conclusions to be drawn if any in a more sober manner. Or not. Whatever.

[Lem]

You would be wrong in your assumptions. I have spelled this out several times regarding the process in this thread. Sagan's story fits very well.

Hi Lem,

I hope things are well with you and your family. For the sake of discussion, could you do it one more time for me here since I didn't assume anything but instead asked? I really don't think the dragon analogy works here. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong but the way to show it is to point out the extraordinary claim that deserves extraordinary evidence. If that isn't what is meant by a dragon, well, that's an issue with Sagan.

Please don't reference my family. Your posts attacking me are grossly inappropriate. For you to reference my family in that context is disgusting.

You were "assuming something" when you posted

It seems it's being used to describe skepticism in the conclusion the story is a lie because evidence of the flight hasn't been found. But that's sloppy thinking and a misuse of the analogy created by Sagan.

My reference to Sagan's story was to note that it was a never ending process:

I'm inclined to see it Lem's way, assuming I'm reading as intended; ironically, she sums up to pretty much what honor has said, that the incident may be unfalsifiable.....

Recall Carl Sagan's Dragon. So what's the difference here?

Yes, you read me as intended, Gad, ironic or not, it really does seem as though there is very little actual disagreement going on. And much like Sagan's parable, every time a reason to not believe in the dragon is stated, another way is proposed to bypass it.

Prior to that:

So a new possibility, that potentially excuses the subject of the biography and the editor of the biography from responsibility for what is written.

All I can do at this point is quote myself.

then there is literally no end to this endeavor.

Every single piece of information presented ... can be dismissed by stating that [any, whatsoever] conclusion might arise from [an infinite number of cases of 'something else'].

After so many renditions of this, it becomes nothing more than a perverse manipulation of statistical likelihood.

And before that:

The fact that you and some others think I’m trying to argue a case for defending Nelson indicates to me that I’m seeing a ton of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning....

Maybe that's part of the confusion. I certainly don't think that, and I'm not really seeing anyone telling you that, but this is a long thread, so I may have missed something. In fact I thought that several times in this thread you had indicated that exaggerating up from a simpler story was one of several explanations you would consider feasible, so I don't see you as already taking a position....

So I have no problem with detail, it just has severely diminishing returns at some point, especially when absence of evidence can interminably be ascribed to incompleteness of the data, with no conclusion. The costs eventually outweigh the benefits.

[bolding added to indicate just a few of the times I have noted the interminable process of finding another reason to believe in the invisible dragon.]

[Gadianton]

The claim someone has an invisible dragon in their garage assumes an alien worldview is in fact true. It demands one accept the existence of dragons, of immaterial yet influential invisible material living beings, and a host of other conditions. Nelson's story does not require an explanation that reinvents the world in fundamental ways.

A few pages back I offered an account of a meeting I had with a would-be mentor set up by a friend. The guy was successful, but clearly had issues -- I'd been warned about that. The conversation was a one-way street; a brag session. It was one fantastical claim after another, even though no claims required a restructuring of the world in a fundamental way. After a long string of bizarre boasts, an "incidental" mention was made of a Stake Center in Idaho he'd frequented outfitted with four indoor swimming pools. It was so random and pointless it seared itself into my mind.

Your reaction? What prior jumps to your mind with that claim? For me, it's about 1%. Nelson's claim? about 4%. But, enter "memory".

Now we can reconstruct the claims to be something higher. For Nelson, throw out the captain dialogue, throw out the contradictions between his accounts regarding the function of the nosedive, soften the nosedive to a stable descent and throw out pulling up at the last moment before doom. Res even allows for the date given to be bogus. I've suggested a flight overseas. Go farther -- memory is really a black box for all kinds of errors. Throw out Dew's second plane that got him to the conference on time. As for my meeting: As I suggested upthread, maybe the church had bought some land in Idaho, and maybe it ended up owning an adjacent pool to where the building was built? Maybe it was one pool with a spa, that gets you 2 pools, and he embellished a little and said 4? Maybe that's still 51% right, and true enough to repeat every other General Conference?

And for the dragon. while stacking supernatural qualities makes for an easy example, I think it would be a poor lesson if that's the only way out. More important, is negotiating until the evidence appears to fit the claim. We can throw out all kinds of details made in the Book of Mormon as flaws in "cultural memory" and end up with a small number of Nephites whose culture was assumed by "others" and then as Bill Hamblin insisted, we wouldn't expect to find any external evidence and lo, we don't find external evidence, just as we'd expect.

At the same time, we can't hold people to every last detail. So where is the line in the sand? I don't have a great answer, but I can tell you my biggest problem in a case like Rusty or this guy I met, and perhaps unlike the Book of Mormon, the ease of which details could be provided that might lead to a quick confirmation of at least, initial credibility, increases the likelihood of it being BS for me. (somebody I believe made a similar claim about the gold plates, maybe Analytics or PG).