Skip to main content

Some People Just Won’t Believe It: The Skeptic’s View

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 382 Accesses

Abstract

Many scientists have always been skeptical concerning BL. The reported properties simply didn’t fit into any known theoretical framework. This was not so obvious when physics itself was less advanced, but since the 1950s, when the structure of matter had been unraveled and plasma physics had been developed, BL simply had no place in the context of known and understood phenomena. Currently, only very few scientists are actively working on this subject, and most regard BL as a pseudo-phenomenon or chimera (Campbell, 2008). Historically, misidentification of BL with other natural phenomena has been proposed by all skeptics. As Brand’s analysis and Stenhoff’s analysis show, BL reports must be scrutinized and checked carefully for the credibility of evidence, but there remain a considerable number of reports that are very detailed and from sources that cannot be easily dismissed as unreliable. Therefore, alternative explanations centering around misperceptions or illusions have been developed, the earliest being afterimages created by the exposure of the retina to strong light, for example from a lightning channel. Afterimages are usually observed when one unintentionally looks at the Sun: a spot—either bright or dark—is observed for several seconds because the retina is not responding normally at the spot where the image of the Sun was focused. The afterimage fades away within a few seconds, but eye movement may create the illusion that an object is moving in the field of view. For lightning to produce an afterimage in the form of a round spot, the channel has to be seen end-on, otherwise one would perceive a jagged line as an afterimage and no glowing globe. Since it is very rare to see a lightning channel end-on, the conditions for such an illusion are rarely fulfilled. In addition, many observers of BL objects could never have seen the initial linear lightning, so in these cases such an explanation is not possible. All the BL observations in Neuruppin (appendix case 1) fall in that category. More recently, several different, but related phenomena have been proposed as the source of BL illusions: stimulation of the brain or retina by magnetic or electric fields due to a nearby lightning stroke. Before discussing these stimulation hypotheses in more detail, we will have a look at the arguments and strategies of three well-known BL skeptics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   34.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Recommended books from two serious skeptics: M. A. Rothmann: A Physicist’s Guide to Skepticism, Prometheus Books and C. Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, Headline Book Publishing.

  2. 2.

    Fox fire may be derived from “faux”, French for false; so, it means “false fire”. This may also be the origin of the name of “Fox News” in the US.

  3. 3.

    From the English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steuart_Campbell

  4. 4.

    Trans-cranial means “through the skull”.

  5. 5.

    In statistics, the term “null hypothesis” is used differently.

  6. 6.

    Dunning, B. “Ball Lightning.” Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, 9 Feb 2010. Web. 5 Jan 2019. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4192>

  7. 7.

    Please don’t get me wrong: skeptics like B. Dunning are doing an important job in a world that is ever more swamped with fake science and the like, but it seems that some of them have lost faith in humanity, so they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater by being too critical—at least in the case of BL.

References

  • Bäcker, D. and Boerner, H. and Näther, K. and S. (2007) Multiple Ball Lightning Observations at Neuruppin, Germany. International Journal of Meteorology 32:193–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, K. (1973) Kugelblitz und Blitzforschung. Naturwissenschaften 60:485–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, S. (1993) Comment on ball-lightning and greenhouse-effect papers. Journal of Meteorology 18: 259

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, S., (2008) The Case Against Ball Lightning, https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-12-23/#feature

  • Cooray, G. and Cooray, V. (2008) Could some ball lightning observations be optical hallucinations caused by epileptic seizures, Open Atmospheric Science Journal, pp 101–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooray, V. (2015) An Introduction to Lightning, Springer, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, W. J. (1936) Ball Lightning. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 76:613–626

    Google Scholar 

  • Kammer, T. et al (2005) Transcranial magnetic stimulation in the visual system. II. Characterization of induced phosphenes and scotomas. Experimental Brain Research 160:129–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keul, A. and Stummer, O. (2002) Comparative analysis of 405 Central European ball lightning cases. Journal of Meteorology 27:385–393

    Google Scholar 

  • Keul, A. G. and Sauseng, P. and Diendorfer, G. (2008) Ball lightning - An electromagnetic hallucination? International Journal of Meteorology 33:89–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Panayiotopoulos, C. P. (1999) Elementary visual hallucinations, blindness, and headache in idiopathic occipital epilepsy: differentiation from migraine. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry 66:536–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peer, J. and Cooray, V. and Cooray G. and Kendl, A. (2010) Erratum and addendum to “Transcranial stimulability of phosphenes by long lightning electromagnetic pulses” [Phys. Lett. A 374 (2010) 2932]. Physics Letters A 374:4797–4799

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Boerner, H. (2019). Some People Just Won’t Believe It: The Skeptic’s View. In: Ball Lightning. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20783-0_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics