campermon wrote:

MarkgaB5 wrote:

campermon wrote:Anecdotal evidence therefore [insert woo of choice].

[/thread]

NEWS SOURCE
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource. ... ug=1064313

News sources are included in the phrase 'anedoctal evidence'.

Bring forth a source with some scientific rigour; peer reviewed essential.

In the meantime enjoy this: http://skepdic.com/shc.html

Do you expect me to go all the way to New Jersey to obtain the medical journal where the case was mentioned? Let's drop this case, shall we? Lets go onto a more general inquiry; ''Can the thigh muscles of the human body overheat to the point of spontaneously catching aflame?''

MarkgaB5 wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

MarkgaB5 wrote:A better inquiry could be, ''Can the inside of a person's leg catch aflame?'' Cells make heat, so I'm wondering if its possible for muscle cells to perhaps ''overheat'' to the point combustion is reached. Since one can simply feel their leg or arm and notice the heat being released, hopefully this inquiry shall draw less irrelevant argument.

Do you have any actual evidence that this has ever occurred?

No, however, one should question the possibility.

Google is your friend.

MarkgaB5 wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

MarkgaB5 wrote:Yes, search ''James Hamilton, mathematics professor Nashville'', there is an obituary dedicated to him, so he certainly did exist - additionally, a Google search for his name, + the phrase ''Spontaneous Human Combustion'' gives consistant accounts of the event on several websites.
http://www.digitalantiquaria.com/Free/C.pdf

Anyone have any explanations for the event that occurred as described? I'd really appreciate it.

The fact he existed is irrelevant. Abraham Lincoln existed but we can't conclude from that that he was a vampire hunter.
The fact that accounts on the internet are the same are also irrelevant; there is still no evidence that it actually occurred. Until you can provide such evidence - and anecotes are not evidence - then there nothing to explain.

Well do you expect me to time-travel? I hope not. This is the only evidence I could find for an event that happened over a century ago, and facing it at value , I seek explanations for the event, so please if you're going to just argue with me then don't respond, save your breath, and go to another topic that is for you. I came here for friendly explanation only, so all posts not to do with explanations shall be flagged or ignored.A simple google search shall give you information.

A better inquiry could be, ''Can the inside of a person's leg catch aflame?''

Try framing the scenario as hypothetical (which is what it is, after all).

"If this account were factual, what would be possible scientific explanations?"

In case you weren't aware of the fact, SHC was studied seriously in the '80s, and the rational explanation is a very scary but
clear-cut incidence of physics known as the "wick effect". The incident you describe here doesn't seem to fit wick effect conditions (almost all cases do).

lobawad wrote:

MarkgaB5 wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

MarkgaB5 wrote:Yes, search ''James Hamilton, mathematics professor Nashville'', there is an obituary dedicated to him, so he certainly did exist - additionally, a Google search for his name, + the phrase ''Spontaneous Human Combustion'' gives consistant accounts of the event on several websites.
http://www.digitalantiquaria.com/Free/C.pdf

Anyone have any explanations for the event that occurred as described? I'd really appreciate it.

The fact he existed is irrelevant. Abraham Lincoln existed but we can't conclude from that that he was a vampire hunter.
The fact that accounts on the internet are the same are also irrelevant; there is still no evidence that it actually occurred. Until you can provide such evidence - and anecotes are not evidence - then there nothing to explain.

Well do you expect me to time-travel? I hope not. This is the only evidence I could find for an event that happened over a century ago, and facing it at value , I seek explanations for the event, so please if you're going to just argue with me then don't respond, save your breath, and go to another topic that is for you. I came here for friendly explanation only, so all posts not to do with explanations shall be flagged or ignored.A simple google search shall give you information.

A better inquiry could be, ''Can the inside of a person's leg catch aflame?''

Try framing the scenario as hypothetical (which is what it is, after all).

"If this account were factual, what would be possible scientific explanations?"

In case you weren't aware of the fact, SHC was studied seriously in the '80s, and the rational explanation is a very scary but
clear-cut incidence of physics known as the "wick effect". The incident you describe here doesn't seem to fit wick effect conditions (almost all cases do).

Thanks, and yes the case (if it is true) doesn't match the wick effect conditions, which makes it unusual.

MarkgaB5 wrote:A better inquiry could be, ''Can the inside of a person's leg catch aflame?'' Cells make heat, so I'm wondering if its possible for muscle cells to perhaps ''overheat'' to the point combustion is reached. Muscle cells use a lot of energy and one does get the sensation of 'hotness' during physical exertion. Since one can simply feel their leg or arm and notice the heat being released, hopefully this inquiry shall draw less irrelevant argument.

How's that better than my explanation? We have no evidence of it. We do have evidence of fumes burning over trousers without burning the trousers (or cloth in general). Hell you can pour lighter fluid on your hand and light it without burning your hand.

Possible scenario: Guy gets up in his underpants and gets paraffin on them without noticing as he lights a lamp. He puts his trousers on and fumes build above the surface. Later a discarded match comes into contact. Flames are caused above in the fumes and below on the oil itself against his skin.

Animavore wrote:

MarkgaB5 wrote:A better inquiry could be, ''Can the inside of a person's leg catch aflame?'' Cells make heat, so I'm wondering if its possible for muscle cells to perhaps ''overheat'' to the point combustion is reached. Muscle cells use a lot of energy and one does get the sensation of 'hotness' during physical exertion. Since one can simply feel their leg or arm and notice the heat being released, hopefully this inquiry shall draw less irrelevant argument.

How's that better than my explanation? We have no evidence of it. We do have evidence of fumes burning over trousers without burning the trousers (or cloth in general). Hell you can pour lighter fluid on your hand and light it without burning your hand.

Possible scenario: Guy gets up in his underpants and gets paraffin on them without noticing as he lights a lamp. He puts his trousers on and fumes build above the surface. Later a discarded match comes into contact. Flames are caused above in the fumes and below on the oil itself against his skin.

Pretty good explanation . were flame - resistant trousers available in the 1800s?

MarkgaB5 wrote:

Animavore wrote:

MarkgaB5 wrote:A better inquiry could be, ''Can the inside of a person's leg catch aflame?'' Cells make heat, so I'm wondering if its possible for muscle cells to perhaps ''overheat'' to the point combustion is reached. Muscle cells use a lot of energy and one does get the sensation of 'hotness' during physical exertion. Since one can simply feel their leg or arm and notice the heat being released, hopefully this inquiry shall draw less irrelevant argument.

How's that better than my explanation? We have no evidence of it. We do have evidence of fumes burning over trousers without burning the trousers (or cloth in general). Hell you can pour lighter fluid on your hand and light it without burning your hand.

Possible scenario: Guy gets up in his underpants and gets paraffin on them without noticing as he lights a lamp. He puts his trousers on and fumes build above the surface. Later a discarded match comes into contact. Flames are caused above in the fumes and below on the oil itself against his skin.

Pretty good explanation . were flame - resistant trousers available in the 1800s?

They don't need to be flame resistant. Fumes can light above things with damaging them. If the trousers are baggy enough there'll be space between them and the underpants below.

I need to come up with a way to test it

I truly find these cases (no not the SHC case) fascinating. Someone posts an anecdote (regardless of 100 years ago or yesterday) of woo, pseudoscience, or theism. And clearly they want to BELIEVE it is real. They apparently want corroboration in support of those fantastic, magical beliefs, yet they post on a skeptic site and when their claim is pointed out to be utter bs, woo, anecdote, etc. they argue with the very people they came to 'ask.'

What is the psychology behind such behavior?

I've seen a rash of it in recent weeks on various forums.
Any thoughts on this?

Animavore wrote:

MarkgaB5 wrote:

Animavore wrote:

MarkgaB5 wrote:A better inquiry could be, ''Can the inside of a person's leg catch aflame?'' Cells make heat, so I'm wondering if its possible for muscle cells to perhaps ''overheat'' to the point combustion is reached. Muscle cells use a lot of energy and one does get the sensation of 'hotness' during physical exertion. Since one can simply feel their leg or arm and notice the heat being released, hopefully this inquiry shall draw less irrelevant argument.

How's that better than my explanation? We have no evidence of it. We do have evidence of fumes burning over trousers without burning the trousers (or cloth in general). Hell you can pour lighter fluid on your hand and light it without burning your hand.

Possible scenario: Guy gets up in his underpants and gets paraffin on them without noticing as he lights a lamp. He puts his trousers on and fumes build above the surface. Later a discarded match comes into contact. Flames are caused above in the fumes and below on the oil itself against his skin.

Pretty good explanation . were flame - resistant trousers available in the 1800s?

They don't need to be flame resistant. Fumes can light above things with damaging them. If the trousers are baggy enough there'll be space between them and the underpants below.

I need to come up with a way to test it

I suggest you light your underpants on fire and then fart.

kennyc wrote:I truly find these cases (no not the SHC case) fascinating. Someone posts an anecdote (regardless of 100 years ago or yesterday) of woo, pseudoscience, or theism. And clearly they want to BELIEVE it is real. They apparently want corroboration in support of those fantastic, magical beliefs, yet they post on a skeptic site and when their claim is pointed out to be utter bs, woo, anecdote, etc. they argue with the very people they came to 'ask.'

What is the psychology behind such behavior?

I've seen a rash of it in recent weeks on various forums.
Any thought on this?

I'm Agnostic about SHC , i'm saying if this is true how would you explain it. lots of things in history are based off of anecdotes , because we cant go back in time to confirm they happened , but that doesnt mean they should be disregarded entirely. I mentioned a more general question, if cells in the leg can overheat to the point of combustion .

Cells make heat .. muscle cells make lots of it , so too much heat = combustion of thigh ?? one should question the possibility , for the same reason one should question the possibility if the anecdote may be true. I'm not good with biology so correct me if im wrong .

MarkgaB5 wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

MarkgaB5 wrote:Yes, search ''James Hamilton, mathematics professor Nashville'', there is an obituary dedicated to him, so he certainly did exist - additionally, a Google search for his name, + the phrase ''Spontaneous Human Combustion'' gives consistant accounts of the event on several websites.
http://www.digitalantiquaria.com/Free/C.pdf

Anyone have any explanations for the event that occurred as described? I'd really appreciate it.

The fact he existed is irrelevant. Abraham Lincoln existed but we can't conclude from that that he was a vampire hunter.
The fact that accounts on the internet are the same are also irrelevant; there is still no evidence that it actually occurred. Until you can provide such evidence - and anecotes are not evidence - then there nothing to explain.

Well do you expect me to time-travel? I hope not.

Absurd strawman argument. In other words, no, you have nothing but an anecdote.

This is the only evidence I could find for an event that happened over a century ago, and facing it at value ,

No, that's the claim. It's not evidence. Accepting it at face value is not rational.

I seek explanations for the event,

I suspect you want the explanation that you want to hear. I see no reason to provide anything other than a request for evidence that supports the claim. If you can't provide any, that's your problem.

so please if you're going to just argue with me then don't respond, save your breath, and go to another topic that is for you.

Er, tough. I am member here and I will post within topic and within the FUA in any thread that I choose.

I came here for friendly explanation only, so all posts not to do with explanations shall be flagged

And 'flagging' would be what exactly?

[u] or ignored

Yes, the 'La! La! La! I'm not listening' strategy always strengthens one's position.

.A simple google search shall give you information.

It did, however, not produce any evidence that this event actually occurred. Got any?

A better inquiry could be, ''Can the inside of a person's leg catch aflame?''

Of course it can. Apply a source of heat until it reaches ignition temperature.

Cells inside the leg muscle supplies heat , what if they Overheat too quickly and the heat cant be dispersed fast enough?

MarkgaB5 wrote:

kennyc wrote:I truly find these cases (no not the SHC case) fascinating. Someone posts an anecdote (regardless of 100 years ago or yesterday) of woo, pseudoscience, or theism. And clearly they want to BELIEVE it is real. They apparently want corroboration in support of those fantastic, magical beliefs, yet they post on a skeptic site and when their claim is pointed out to be utter bs, woo, anecdote, etc. they argue with the very people they came to 'ask.'

What is the psychology behind such behavior?

I've seen a rash of it in recent weeks on various forums.
Any thought on this?

I'm Agnostic about SHC , i'm saying if this is true how would you explain it. lots of things in history are based off of anecdotes , because we cant go back in time to confirm they happened , but that doesnt mean they should be disregarded entirely. I mentioned a more general question, if cells in the leg can overheat to the point of combustion .

Cells make heat .. muscle cells make lots of it , so too much heat = combustion of thigh ?? one should question the possibility , for the same reason one should question the possibility if the anecdote may be true. I'm not good with biology so correct me if im wrong .

If, if, if.....

As you have already been told there are numerous things wrong with this. First and foremost it is anecdote. There is no proof it even happened. Second SHC has been studied extensively and there is no proof it happens in the way you believe. The so-called 'wick effect' is real but that is simple science of combustible materials (including human fat/flesh). Thirdly you have been offered a number of possible answers to this anecdotal situation yet you continue to argue against them. I wouldn't call that agnostic at all -- as I've already explained. You came here looking for corroboration and now you are arguing with those who have both poked holes in your claim and those who have offered potential explanations. This is totally fascinating to me from a psychological perspective.

what about the possibility i mentioned, that leg muscle cells overheat to the point of causing combustion ? not all anecdotes should be dismissed , theres a possibility that theyre true , or at least based on some fact. my personal theory is that muscle cells acutely overheat, but due to density heat cannot escape , so heat rises and causes skin to catch aflame . not sure if this is biologically accurate so do correct me if im wrong. my computer overheated once from overclocking the graphics card, and smoke came out of it and I began to see flames, fortunately I ceased the power supply before it got out of hand. surely this can happen biologically ?

MarkgaB5 wrote:Cells inside the leg muscle supplies heat , what if they Overheat too quickly and the heat cant be dispersed fast enough?

I suggest you google 'Ockham's razor'

BlackBart wrote:

MarkgaB5 wrote:Cells inside the leg muscle supplies heat , what if they Overheat too quickly and the heat cant be dispersed fast enough?

I suggest you google 'Ockham's razor'

in that case then youre saying the muscle cells of this person overheated as he was walking, causing his skin to ignite and damage his muscle from the intensive heat created from overheating cells.

well i guess it makes sense because computers can overheat and catch aflame too . so i guess a similar thing can happen to cells
[b][i][u]I suppose this proves SHC is true and biologically very plausible and is just a matter of overheating muscle cells not the paranormal etc, thanks all

MarkgaB5 wrote:.... not all anecdotes should be dismissed , theres a possibility that theyre true , or at least based on some fact. ..... not sure if this is biologically accurate so do correct me if im wrong..... surely this can happen biologically ?

Right anecdotes should be tested scientifically to either prove or disprove them.

As far as being biologically accurate -- you are not. There is not any such thing as Spontaneous Cellular Combustion.

No, it can't.

If you believe it can then it is up to you to provide scientific evidence of such a thing happening. So far you have done nothing but provide anecdotes and non-scientific guesses, pseudoscience and woo.

I'm probably clutching at straws here, but the news article refers to the incident being published in the Transactions of the Medical Society of Tennessee. I don't suppose anyone would be able to dig up the relevant journal article - assuming it exists - and see if there's any more information than in the commonly posted internet anecdotes?

KennyC, Please provide the reasons why muscle cells cant overheat (locally or generally) to the point of causing spontaneous combustion of the skin / muscle. I've personally seen a computer almost go up in flames after overclocking a graphics card to the point it overheated. Muscles contain nerves which use electricity, like a graphics card, ecxept muscle cells are denser so heat isnt released as readily.

MarkgaB5 wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

MarkgaB5 wrote:Cells inside the leg muscle supplies heat , what if they Overheat too quickly and the heat cant be dispersed fast enough?

I suggest you google 'Ockham's razor'

in that case then youre saying the muscle cells of this person overheated as he was walking, causing his skin to ignite and damage his muscle from the intensive heat created from overheating cells.

I'm saying nothing of the sort. I'll be charitable and let the misrepresentation pass this time.

well i guess it makes sense because computers can overheat and catch aflame too . so i guess a similar thing can happen to cells
I suppose this proves SHC is true, thanks all