I don't believe in these things but a friend asked me to explain the "precognitions" of Joseph DeLouise and I didn't know what to tell him.

http://www.answers.com/topic/joseph-delouise

In November 1967, during an interview on a Chicago radio show, DeLouise predicted a major bridge collapse before the year was out. Twenty-one days later, the Silver Bridge across the Ohio River at Point Pleasant, West Virginia, collapsed. It matched in every detail the collapse described by DeLouise on the air. Then in 1969 he predicted a major train crash, the drowning of Mary Jo Kopechne (while a passenger in a car being driven by Sen. Edward Kennedy), and an airplane disaster in Indianapolis and gave his insights into the connection of the Manson Family to the murder of actress Sharon Tate. Whereas the 1967 prediction had made him famous in Chicago, the 1969 predictions established his reputation across America.

How do you explain these?

Hope it's the right forum, it's not about religion but it is about spirituality.

Do we have a transcript of the actual predictions themselves? Without them, it's going to be impossible to make an accurate assessment.

I've found very few informations about Joseph DeLouise.

It seems he also made wrong predictions:

http://www.trivia-library.com/b/psyc...h-delouise.htm

Past Predictions: Wrong--Though DeLouise came up with several accurate conclusions about the Tate-LaBianca murders, he was wrong when he predicted that only one of the murderers would be convicted.


* He saw a stork, indicating a birth, around Jacqueline and Aristotle Onassis. Onassis died in 1975; he and Jacqueline were childless. DeLouise was wrong.


Right--His psychic clues about the identity of the Tate-LaBianca murderers were incredibly accurate. In 1969 he came up with the name Linda (Kasabian) and "someone from Texas" (Charles "Tex" Watson). He also predicted the involvement of drugs and "thrills" in the case. DeLouise was right.

* He predicted the death of Ho Chi Minh shortly before it happened in 1969. DeLouise was right.

* In 1971 he said that the stock market would go over 1,000 in September, 1972. He was off by only two months; it went over 1,000 in November of that year. DeLouise was partly right.


Future Predictions: By 1979

* Marijuana will be legalized in the U.S.

For 1991-1996--The Arabs and Jews will unite.

Well, sorry to say, but until we can get transcriptions of the actual predictions we just can't do much. Until then, I'm going to assume he uses the tactics that most people of his ilk use, i.e. make a bunch of informed, vague, sufficiently broad claims, and hope that some of them stick.

There really is not enough informatio to access this person, but there isn't really much to explain. People predict things all the time. Sometimes things are bound to come true, sometimes not. We don't know the specifics, but I sure someone has predict a bridge collapsing in the next year in every year and when it happens they are right when they don't they are wrong. Especially if they make their predictions sufficiently vague so that after the fact it can seem like they had specificity but it is more or less post hoc interpretation or misrepresentation.

Hmm... I have no idea if that's a reasonable thought or not, but suppose there's something like precognition and suppose it is such that "by design" it doesn't really lend itself to repeated trials or statistical study or some such. That would not necessarily mean that such events are not naturalistically explainable, per se, would it?

Suppose the guy has a hyper-tuned brain that reacts to sub-sonic vibrations of bridges or something.

I mean, in exegesis, basically what we do is eliminating "chance" as an explanation (for text-production, traditions, interpretations etc.). For the simple reason that we can't quantify it. But obv. that doesn't meant that chance doesn't happen - it surely does all the time. With texts - the reality whose impact is completely unquestioned yet that is unquantifiable and therefore gets basically ignored is "chance". What if with precognition the variable is simply "testability" or some such?

If this person were specific enough in his predictions, i.e. the Golden Gate Bridge will collapse on Feb. 13, 2013 at 7:43 a.m., then we could reasonably get away from repeated trials. However, as the specificity of his predictions decreases, the need for repeated trials increases to ensure a high level of confidence in the efficacy of his ability.

My point is not really to figure out whether he's a cheat or not (which is what your conditions would test) - who cares.

I guess I'm asking whether there's a reason why there seems to be a sort of (scientific) meta-principle that reality is only that which is testable.

Gah, that sounds like the bunny-version of skepticism or evangelical patzerism. It's not meant that way, though. :/

with so many people out there who can tell the future, you would think at least one of them would have used their powers to win the lottery a couple of times instead of selling their services for $50/hr.

I'm not entirely sure what your asking (sorry). Are you, in effect, questioning the usage of methodological naturalism, or are you asking why, for example, I would never consider a miracle "real" until at such a time as it's been tested? Or something else still?

This has been brought up many times in the past (though not recently, as far as I've seen). I've put forth a couple different examples for consideration:

1) Hand-clapping: I claim I just clapped my hands. This is a claim about reality, but it is in no way verifiable unless you happened to be in the room when I did it (there's nobody else here). This demonstrates how there are true claims about the universe that cannot be verified via scientific means.

2) Floating ball: Suppose God exists and causes a ball to float in the air for a period of time, and then ceases to cause it to float. There is no way for science to properly conclude the factually true statement that God caused the ball to float.

There are some who believe in the strong statement you've given, but many people allow for at least a nuanced view which admits other forms of "knowing" besides repeated testability.

Being able to predict *SOME* things does not imply the ability to predict everything. If a person were to have a natural ability to detect bridge collapses (even if the ability were based on purely natural causes), it would not mean that this person could predict lottery numbers.

The latter. It's at least conceivable that reality is such (I'm totally talking out of my ass here, but suppose quantum-effects of massive proportions spilling over from the nth dimension of the string theory version du jour, influencing <insert thing from our dimension>) that miracles do happen, have a perfectly naturalistic explanation, yet are entirely inaccessible to standardized testing, no?

Sure.

It comes down to the level of confidence which you wish to attach to a claim, and whether it reaches a high enough level to be deemed "reality". With Aaron's clapping example, I would accept his claim as reality in spite of not 'testing' the claim myself. After all, clapping is a regular occurrence, and I have no reason to believe Aaron is lying. However, I do not feel justified in calling floating ball example "reality" until such a time that I can test it myself (or have enough confidence in Aaron), after all, floating balls are not a regular occurrence, and break the laws of nature as I know them. Now, of course, Aaron might be completely justified in believing in the "reality" of the ball, assuming he has some way of "knowing" it existed.

Yeah, I've made this same argument here. Freteloo, I don't think it's a tenet of methodological naturalism that reality-is-that-which-is-testable, and I'm not sure where you are getting this idea. E.g from the Wiki page (emphasis mine):

Some of DeLouise predictions' were not vague (I've found these on a site but it's not in English):

He said on 15 December 1968 that Kennedy familiy will be involved in a water tragedy. Then he said he saw a woman drawning.

On 21 May 1969 he said he saw an airplane disaster near Indianapolis. He saw 79 dead people and said that the number 330 will be related to the airplane disaster. On 9 September 1969 at 3:30 PM there was an airplane disaster near Indianapolis and 82 people died.

I don't think Kennedy prediction can be explained by chance (but the airplane disaster can be explained by chance imo). However it can be a fake story (DeLouise never predicted this, he only lied that he predicted Kennedy accident).

See:

Well, we can atleast verify if

1) You exist
2) You are able to clap your hands
3) Your claimed room exists
4) We can check accounts of your whereabouts at the time of the clapping (for example an IP trace to your computer)
5) Verify that you have indeed clapped before
6) Determine metrics to check if you are trustworthy person

Your god and his ball... not so much.

I've found this transciption:

"in 1970 in Released a book called "Psychic Mission" which in Chapter 11 holds the following passage, Regarding the 9-11 Attacks:

<<CHAPTER 11 Predictions for the Future

Clouds swirled slowly in the crystal and the lotus opened as I concentrated on the three decades between now and the turn of the century.

I was expecting to see rapidly changing events showing the panorama of life, but this time as the lotus enlarged, I could see skyscrapers shrouded in a misty haze. I felt a strong impression, as if a as if a voice were saying it-" New York ."

It was the night of August 27, 1970 . I was in my medi*tation room at home working on the period between now and the year 2000. A psychic’s story is incomplete without his forecasts of the future. This was my second sitting in a two-week period.

As the impression of New York rang in my senses I felt the ominous sensations of disaster. I began to feel tense and fidgety, and chills rippled up my back. In the mist or fog I heard the swishing roar of an airliner, then I saw it clearly. It was a large passenger plane and I sensed 115 people were on board. It was climbing, as if it had just taken off. Suddenly I heard the sound of another airliner, and as it loomed into view I received impressions of seventy-five or eighty persons aboard. The second airliner overran the first >>

This forecast is all the more amazing when you stop and think:

1) The Twin Towers were not built until 1973

2) Never have two plane crashed:

On the same day, or in the same location,

or within an hour of one another"

source: http://www.hotspotsz.com/fortopic1813.html



I've also found an old newspaper from December 1977 where he makes the following predictions:

- There will be two attempts to assassinate Anwar Sadat. The second attempt will succeed. (true, Anwar Sadat was killed in 1981, but I don't know if it were two attempts)

- There is going to be an attempt to blow up the Statue of Liberty (true, in 1980)

- There will be guerrilla warfare in the Philippines (I don't know)

- in 10 years the suburbs will be incorporated into the cities (I think it's not true)

- telephones will also become adding machines (I don't know)

- Richar Nixon will be accepted by the public again (I don't know)

Hearsay.

Not amazing at all. He makes a vague "prediction" of an airline desaster in a span of 30 years in a city with three major airports. Whoop-de-freaking-doo.

In case you didn't know the 9-11 attacks happened in 2001, not between 1970 and 2000.

Nowhere in his prediction did he specify that the plane(s) crash(es) into a skyscraper.

Nowhere did he specify that there will be two airplanes crashing.

He specified the plane was climbing. The two planes that crashed into the WTC took off from Logan Airport in Boston, MA.

The two planes had 92 and 65 people on board. Not 115, not 75, not 80.

There was no mist or fog in NYC on Sept. 11th 2001.

So he did not get a single detail correct. I am not impressed

Let's suppose precognition is true. I don't think you can be so accurate. It's not big difference between 2000 and 2001.

Even if he would have guessed the correct number I wouldn't have been impressed. It's not difficult to guess the approximate number of people from a plane (however he guessed that the first plane had more people than the second).

But it was smoke from the crush.

But he speaked about disaster and 2 planes. It's connotation that he was thinking of airplane crush.

I agree with the rest.

Somehow showing that every individual detail is not correct feels a bit simplistic. :/

(Or, to turn an argument I've learned from MB upside down: Pretend there is a people that is hellbent on dismissing evidence of the supernatural - this is exactly how I'd expect them to behave. )

Well I was just talkingloosely, but you get something that is in effect pretty similar to what I said if you emphasize differently.

You missed the point, but I think you know that. Knowing that I *CAN* clap my hands does not imply that I *DID* clap my hands.