Can any Dopers help clear up my ignorance on the following; I’m sure I’ve read somewhere that there have been stastical studies of train-crashes, whereby it has been found that there have been significantly less passengers boarding these trains, than on average. Is there any basis at all to these kind of claims?
Yes, it has been scientifically proven that large numbers of the public are psychic and have true premonitions of upcoming disastrous events.
The press media decided not to make any fuss over this revelation, which is probably why you haven’t heard much about it.
I suspected something like that. So, do you reckon the people who were making these ‘tests’ were only using confirmation bias to get their results, or something, or had you never even heard of this idea?
What results? The ones you read about ‘somewhere’?
There are two possibilities:
Statistical studies proving premonition exist, but are either being ignored or covered up.
Statistical studies proving premonition don’t exist.
If this is just something you’ve read about then it doesn’t really qualify as a ‘statistical study’ or a ‘test’ that is deserving of any kind of explanation.
It could be factually true. If most people in the USA ride the NE corridor trains, and those operations are better-managed and safer, in the aggregate you might see less people on trains with accidents, just because those train operations aren’t kept up as well. This would conform with the claim. I suppose it’s also possible that after a crash, people tend to avoid that particular line. If that line was actually accident prone, that would drive the numbers towards your claim.
However, if the implication is that people somehow know ahead of time that the trains are going to crash… No way is there any casual connection.
Ivan didn’t mention premonitions, you did. A third possibility is that the factual claim is correct and is completely unrelated to psychic phenomona.
If I could recall the source I’d have given you a cite, but I’m positive it wasn’t in an “Amazing Stories” comic, and that whoever had wrote it was serious in their enquiry.
Well apart from in the title to the thread and the bolded start to his first post.
Because of the thread title I took the ‘studies’ to be proving premonition. You are right in saying that just as a factual statement it could be correct. It would seem unlikely, however.
I’ll have to take your word for that; and my main point still remains.
There is a third - Statistical studies have been done, but they were not very well received, and are therefore not well known.
(Although I’ll be honest and admit they should be found somewhere on the net, I can’t find them myself. I’ll keep looking though.)
No, that’s covered by my two.
D’oh! The bold doesn’t show up when you’re replying, how odd. My bad, never mind…
I’m actually getting a Lyall Watson beeping in my head; does anyone know if this might have come from one of his books? I know he had his critics, but he did write some interesting stuff.
I should learn to read between the lines, eh! 
Or read the 1st one properly, at least. * Bows with abject embarrassment! *
Sounds painful.
The name didn’t ring a bell, but a quick search shows him to be the Supernature guy. I believe he’s fairly well known for making up evidence to support his theories, so he could well be your man.
Please get up. Fawning makes me embarrassed. 
It’s not as if finding references to the supposed theory are that difficult to find.
http://msgboard.snopes.com/message/ultimatebb.php?/ubb/get_topic/f/43/t/001140.html
http://bloggerparty.com/full_planes_dont_crash
And so on.
And, just as significantly, none of them substantiate the claim.
I bow to your Google Fu, also. 
p.s. I must say, this http://bloggerparty.com/full_planes_dont_crash reminds me of that idea that to decrease your chances of a bomb being on board a plane, you should take a bomb onboard, as the chances of two people having bombs are significantly higher! 
The thread title got me thinking about premonitions, and it occurred to me that premonitions might sometimes be the result of mental processes that occur below the level of conscious thought.
I know it’s a joke, but let’s point out that it plays on probabilistic naivete: there is no particular reason to suppose that the probability of having two bombs on board is any lower than the square of the probability of having one bomb on board; i.e., that the probability of there being someone else on the plane with a bomb lowers when conditionalized on oneself bringing aboard a bomb. Indeed, there seems good reason to suppose that anyone else’s bomb-carrying is independent of yours, and thus the two probabilities are equal.
As an analogy, you wouldn’t expect a single die rolled “5” to make it less likely that the next die will also be rolled “5”, would you? (Maybe you would, but you shouldn’t…)
Spoilsport! 