The Existence of Ball Lightning

Conclusions

The argument that ball lightning does not exist is supported by the large number of already well-understood phenomena that resemble its reported characteristics, and by the unreliability of eyewitnesses in describing transient events, especially after long intervals of time. The persistent difficulty of scientists in evolving a model of ball lightning to explain its reported characteristics has also been mentioned in support of this argument. However, there are examples of phenomena, now entirely accepted by science, for which there was once no viable model, or for which the only evidence was descriptions from untrained observers.

The counterargument that ball lightning exists receives support from the significant number of reports from scientists and other trained observers, and from the basic consistency of many aspects of reports, not with standing that ball lightning is a concept unfamiliar to most of the people who report it. Especially consistent are the reports of ball lightning inside airplanes (see Chapter 7). Although there is a shortage of physical evidence for ball lightning in the form of traces that may not be explained by other means and an absence of compelling photographic evidence, this may be a consequence of the properties of the phenomenon.

A rational approach to the ball lightning problem must avoid prejudice generated by the nonconformity of this phenomenon to the “standard” scientific method, by the difficulty of proposing a viable model for ball lightning, or by the association of the phenomenon with “folk science.” Reports of ball lightning must be judged individually, collectively, and comparatively on their own merits.