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

[IHAQ]

We tend to embroider or fill in details that don't exist to give our narratives credibility, fill in blind spots, make them interesting, and justify our behavior. That doesn't mean we believe everything we're saying. Yes, memory can change over time, but sometimes we prevaricate to make our memories more palatable. Our pride demands it. Even though we, ourselves, may not believe all the details of the stories we tell, we're almost certain to defend them as the one true version. After all, why would we lie?

I doubt Nelson believes that everything in the story he tells is accurate in a literal sense. I imagine he feels like he's appealing to a higher truth, as he constructs a kind of parable in order to share what he's certain is a spiritual reality. Jesus told parables, so can he.

That was Paul H. Dunn's argument, he was disciplined for it.

[malkie]

I don't know exactly what Popper said about this, but you don't really discard widely accepted hypotheses based on single contradictory observations. Experiments can be wrong, too, and in fact they quite often are, because experimental science is hard.

Popper is mostly famous for inverting the popular conception that experimental results that are consistent with a theory prove the theory. Instead, Popper argued that experiments can only ever disprove things, never prove them. I don't think this is really quite right, either. Quite often the agreement between experiment and theory can be so unbelievably precise that there's just no way the theory can fail to have a lot of truth in it. "Proof" might still be too strong but for practical purposes it isn't far short.

Popper's attitude is still useful, I think, though, because if even if one observation can't demolish a major theory, it is indeed inherently easier to disprove a hypothesis than to support it convincingly. So if you have a nice hypothesis, don't think about what experiments could support it. Think instead about what experiments could disprove it, and don't take the hypothesis too seriously until it has survived a few of those. It's just a more efficient way to work, because most hypotheses are wrong but it can take you a while to realise the massive flaws in your idea if you are thinking only in terms of supporting it.

While you don't discard widely accepted hypotheses based on single contradictory observations, a single contradictory observation can have a completely different effect from a single confirmatory observation (or even a multitude of them). And such an observation triggers activities that put the strength of the scientific method on full display.

Remember the flurry of activity that occurred after the OPERA experiment in 2011 appeared to show neutrinos traveling faster than light?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-th ... no_anomaly

If the experiment had shown neutrinos traveling at their normal, expected speed, no-one would have given it a second thought.

Although the scientific world in general was skeptical about the results, it caused a number of scientists to search for possible explanations apart from the experimental errors that actually were responsible for the observation. If the results had been validated, it would have led to a significant breakthrough in our understanding.

Even a "bad" observation can lead to positive results in terms of highlighting sources of error.

[kairos]

So why does not someone LDS ( or say the NYT) question the FP or President newsroom for clarification of the details of the death dive plane incident? There must be a couple of reasons that might be given for silence!

k

[IHAQ]

So why does not someone LDS ( or say the NYT) question the FP or President newsroom for clarification of the details of the death dive plane incident? There must be a couple of reasons that might be given for silence!

It's an interesting question. Russell M. Nelson is a serial Dunnist, you'd think an existing serious reporter with an interest in Mormonism would be taking a run at this. Or an up and coming one looking to make a name for themselves. Who knows, maybe they are.

It will be interesting when Res Ipsa returns and reports on their official search for corroborating documentation on the supposed miraculous flight in Russell M. Nelson's anecdote.

[Physics Guy]

While you don't discard widely accepted hypotheses based on single contradictory observations, a single contradictory observation can have a completely different effect from a single confirmatory observation (or even a multitude of them). And such an observation triggers activities that put the strength of the scientific method on full display.

Yeah, but I'm not sure the difference is really between contradictory and confirmatory observations. I think it's really a difference between novel and familiar observations. The first few confirmatory observations are at least as greatly celebrated as any later contradictions; they can cause vast swings in confidence.

Einstein's calculation from General Relativity of the outstanding 43 arc-seconds per century in the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, which had previously been unexplained, impressed everyone. The Mercury precession had been an outstanding contradiction to Newton for decades, but hadn't bothered people too much. It's less than 1% of the total precession rate of 5600 arc-seconds per century, most of which is explained by perfectly Newtonian things, and the whole 5600 seconds per century is still a small effect anyway: it takes over 23 millennia for Mercury's slowly shifting elliptical orbit to trace out a full Spirograph flower around the Sun. So it was easy to just suppose that some small overlooked factor could explain the missing 43 s/c as well. It was the spooky coincidence of GR filling in the discrepancy so exactly, by a fairly simple calculation that involved no fudge factors, that turned a minor contradiction into a great confirmation.

I think you can say much the same for a lot of famous empirical measurements that led to dramatic theoretical changes. The measurements contradicted an old theory, but they became much more important when they became confirmations of a new theory. Only once the new theory had been amply confirmed did further confirmations become insignificant.

I should maybe admit that I'm a little allergic to the term "scientific method". I hold with Feynman's definition of the scientific method of theoretical physics: "No holds barred." There is as much method in science, it seems to me, as there is in buying used cars. You just worry enough about being wrong to look closely. And maybe I just don't talk to enough biologists but the only discussions with other scientists about scientific method that I can recall have been to wonder why we heard so much about this method in high school, when in our actual work it never gets mentioned at all.

[Morley]

We tend to embroider or fill in details that don't exist to give our narratives credibility, fill in blind spots, make them interesting, and justify our behavior. That doesn't mean we believe everything we're saying. Yes, memory can change over time, but sometimes we prevaricate to make our memories more palatable. Our pride demands it. Even though we, ourselves, may not believe all the details of the stories we tell, we're almost certain to defend them as the one true version. After all, why would we lie?

I doubt Nelson believes that everything in the story he tells is accurate in a literal sense. I imagine he feels like he's appealing to a higher truth, as he constructs a kind of parable in order to share what he's certain is a spiritual reality. Jesus told parables, so can he.

That was Paul H. Dunn's argument, he was disciplined for it.

As he should have been.

I think the members of the CoJCoLDS believe the universe bends around the words and will of their prophet, though.
.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

This is neither here nor there, but my wife and I just saw Russell M. Nelson in the East parking P1 zone F by Macy’s. An SUV pulled up in a private parking spot and he got out surrounded by three bodyguards. My wife was like, “Hey, check it out.” He looks like a healthier Charles Montgomery Plantagenet Schicklgruber "Monty" Burns. His bodyguards were all white, of average height and build, and everyone seemed to be in a happy mood. I have no idea if there’s an office or private residence or a tunnel that leads somewhere, but I thought it was interesting he parked at his mall.

- Doc

[IHAQ]

This is neither here nor there, but my wife and I just saw Russell M. Nelson in the East parking P1 zone F by Macy’s. An SUV pulled up in a private parking spot and he got out surrounded by three bodyguards. My wife was like, “Hey, check it out.” He looks like a healthier Charles Montgomery Plantagenet Schicklgruber "Monty" Burns. His bodyguards were all white, of average height and build, and everyone seemed to be in a happy mood. I have no idea if there’s an office or private residence or a tunnel that leads somewhere, but I thought it was interesting he parked at his mall.

- Doc

The 3 bodyguards (how much of the widows mite does that cost?) suggests Russell M. Nelson doesn't trust his God or his Priesthood to protect him.

[Philo Sofee]

IHAQ
The 3 bodyguards (how much of the widows mite does that cost?) suggests Russell M. Nelson doesn't trust his God or his Priesthood to protect him.

Oh of course not, heavens everyone knows bullets and muscle is vastly more useful than prayers and revelations. His God and priesthood no more helped with Covid than it will in the drought upon us all. But hey, the investment corporation of the church will certainly do the Lord's work in amassing another $6-9,000,000,000 for that future rainy day coming some day! Boy we can sure be relieved the work of the Lord is carrying forth...

[ko9s]

I found this in the Civil Aeronautics Board Reports. "Second incidence occurred Nov. 11, 1976 involving Piper PA 31 N74985. Pilot experienced rough engine on scheduled flight between Salt Lake City and St. George. 3 passengers on board. Engine was feathered and precautionary landing made at Delta, Utah, per instructions in company manual. Investigation revealed cylinder base studs sheered. As result of occurrence Sky West change maintenance procedures by checking torque studs at each 100 hour inspection. No damage to aircraft. No injuries to crew or passengers." Either the date is wrong in the report (the inauguration really was on Nov. 12) or President Nelson flew in the day before but mentions Nov. 12 because that was the big event. Neither publications nor memories are always perfect. They probably didn't fly this route every single day. Note there were only 3 passengers, so there wasn't high demand, nor were there a lot of other people to confirm the event. Remember President Nelson is 96 and has outlived a lot of people. At a minimum, this lends a lot of credibility to President Nelson's story. Here is the link to the report if anyone would like to verify this plane incident for themselves. https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/ ... dents+1976