billfish678, your claim appears to be that an astronomer said he saw something that photos didn’t show. Later, when better photos were made, everyone could see what he claimed existed.
This in no way proves that the eye is better than a photo. We only have his word that he saw something. What if he just made it up?
Basically, he made a prediction – out of personal belief, good personal optics, or wild speculation – that spokes existed on Saturn’s rings. He was later proved to be right.
I call your attention to predictions about Venus made by a non-astronomer and all-around nut, Velikovsky, who said that the planet would prove to be hot. He made those predictions when it was thought to be cold. Later, he was proved right (sort of).
This in no way proves that Velikovsky was right about anything else, or that it was any more than a wild guess. And the reasons he gave for his prediction were pretty wild. Many other predictions he made have been wrong.
So before you lionize O’Meara, ask this: Did he make any other predictions that did not prove to be correct? Was this a lucky guess or did he really have something? Throw enough predictions out, some of them are bound to come true.
And even well renowned observational astronomers can be wrong.
Assuming he’s right that it was Steve O’Meara, then yes, O’Meara is a highly respected visual observer. He’s widely known, and has a monthly column in Astronomy magazine. We’re not talking a Velikovsky, here.
(I heard this story, but had no memory at all of who the person was, so I can’t say it was SO.)
You missed my point. Anyone, respected or not, can make a claim to see something. It might prove to be true, it might not. If it is, it can be used to say that the observation was valid. Any other predictions will be conveniently forgotten.
So because spokes were eventually found doesn’t mean that O’Meara (if that was who it was) saw them. He might have thought he did; he might have made them up and got a lucky break. Or he might have actually had extremely sharp eyes. Or he might have “seen” other things that were not true and have been forgotten.
This evidence is not sufficient to make the claim that eyes can see what photos cannot. The eyes can also see what is not there, as evidenced by the Mars canals.
And you missed my point. This guy has a reputation with professional astronomers, not just amateurs. If he sees something, he tells the pros what he thought he saw. They then turn professional quality instruments toward the object he mentions, and look for what he says he saw. He’s had misses, but he’s also had some impressive hits that cause the pros to pay attention when he says he may have seen something interesting.
No, Sir. You are the one making the claim. If you don’t supply ALL the information, you are guilty of selecting data to fit your hypothesis. I will not do your research for you.
I am not impressed by someone making a prediction if it is only one of many predictions, some of which did not come true, no matter how white their lab coat may be.
Professionals are not immune to self-deception or pumping up their credentials. Is an OK name enough for you?
So there is some doubt about what he predicts. Perhaps a scorecard is necessary here. How do you separate the hits from the misses?
He doesn’t make predictions, he makes observations. There’s a difference. He isn’t saying what he thinks something is, he’s reporting what he thinks he saw. Big difference. He leaves it to the pros to explain what it is, assuming they confirm the observation. And they frequently do. He’s noted for his good eyes, not his “theories” about what the things he reports might be. He doesn’t make theories, unlike Velikovsky.
Though you give Velikovsky a bit too much credit in the “theory” department. The second his name was mentioned I heard the sound of a deflating balloon. Or perhaps it was the scratching sound of a phonography needle being drug across a vinyl record.
Musicat has point, though his analogies are terrible. But IMO its on the level of “racism isnt a problem in America, because, well, look at Oprah!”
Yeah, thats a point, but a minor point doesnt make you overwhelming right either.
No difference at all if it can’t be verified. An observation has no more weight than a prediction until verified.
Psychics say they “see” something. Does that make it a valid observation?
Conversely, scientists aren’t immune to fantasy. Just because a scientist claims to see something, it that it enough to make it true? The canals on Mars were seen by an astronomer. Did that make them exist?
A. No, an observation is not the same as a prediction.
B. You are arguing against the entire world of professional astronomy. Anyone will tell you that a skilled observer could outdo traditional plate photography in resolving fine detail, though the effect has been eroded in recent decades by CCDs, adaptive optics, and computer enhancement. That does not mean that ocular astronomy does not have problems, such as a tendency to see patterns that are not there.
C. No scientist of modern times ever supposed that Venus was cold. You’re thinking of Jupiter.
Please note the original claim: “Eyes are better than cameras.”
Then, to prove that postulate, he gave an example of an observer who said he saw something that a camera did not. Eventually, camera images showed that his observation was correct.
Up until the camera images came through, the astronomer’s statement was unsupported by evidence. As far as science is concerned, up to that point, his observation was a prediction. It also might have been a lie, a misinterpretation, or a hoax. No scientist should believe a mere observation without proof, no matter how white the dude’s coat is.
Subsequent events supported the astronomer’s original observation.
Other observations, notably the canali seen on Mars, were NOT supported by later events.
The moral of the story is: Eyes might be better than cameras, or they might not. I am arguing nothing else.
There’s nothing wrong with calling the astronomer’s statement a “prediction.” Predictions of what will happen are the cornerstone of science. A table of future eclipses is a prediction. Cf. predictions made by the Theory of Relativity that were confirmed. Until they were, they were only predictions. There is no shame attached.
Right, and astronomers put that in the category of “interesting observation that has not been confirmed, but should be checked more thoroughly.”
And then, when the technology was developed, they confirmed it.
I don’t believe that anyone has advocated such.
I see your point - we have two anecdotes. One involves an astronomer seeing more detail than cameras, and he was shown to be correct. Another involves an astronomer seeing more detail than cameras, and he was shown to be incorrect. Thus the claim is not proven by the stories given.
However, you missed the part where it was given as an example. He listed a case where an observer said he saw something that cameras could not detect, and then future observations confirmed his original claim. This is a post-hoc case where he did see more than the camera could - it was confirmed. Ergo, you are off base.