Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences. The urban legend. (why, how, ally)

[VerBoston]

how many of these coincidences are based on simple facts ? Such as, were both Lincoln and Kennedy assassinated on a Friday - is this a fact or a theory ? You can ask the same question for many of these coincidences you have presented - do the facts support these claims ?

[Johnny Vanderburgh]

What about the Polk-Bush(Sr.) coincidences?

Both have four letters in their last name, and each starts with a bilabial plosive followed by a vowel and two more consonants.
Polk was in office when Texas came into the union - Bush was from Texas when he came into office.
Both have a one in the singles place of their presidential chronological number (Polk - 11, Bush - 41).
Polk oversaw the opening of the U.S. Naval Acadamy - Bush was a U.S. Naval aviator.
Both were born in eastern states, yet went on to represent a state farther to the west in the House of Representatives.
Both have middle names derived from their mothers' maiden names (Jane Knox - Dorothy Walker).
Both received votes for the office of Vice President.
Polk was elected in '44 - Bush was elected in '88.
Both had Vice Presidents from northern states.
James Polk's Vice President had the first name of George - George Bush's Vice President had the first name of James.
Both of their Vice Presidents had six letters in their last names.
Both had a Secretary of State named James B.
Both appointed two Justices to the SCOTUS.
Both lived out their terms in office.

[Mikestone8]

I once read an even worse (and quite untrue) addition to this list

"One week before his assassination, Lincoln was in Monroe, Maryland.

One week before his assassination, Kennedy was in Marilyn Monroe."

Quite impossible,m of course, as she predeceased him by about a year; but someone couldn't resist it.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

But would the fact that neither had a glass eye be meaningful?

What would be the purpose of such an experiment, if you could design a satisfactory one? Where is the hypothesis? If you were to identify two presidents with an uncommonly large number of similarities and common coincidences, this would establish.....what? That it is possible to have two presidents with that many similarities and common coincidences? That only the intervention of some higher power could have made this possible? That the hand of destiny is evident in these odds defying outcomes?

Neither you nor I have a glass eye. Does that coincidence astound you? No? Then it can be ignored. What are the odds? 0.999999?

The entire history of scientific inquiry it to conduct experiments to determine causation. But you can't proceed to trying to identify the causation until you determine if there really is improbable coincidence. So the methodology is to devise blind experiments against controls. The steps need to be followed in sequence. What I suggested serves the purpose of judging whether there is enough coincidence to indicate possible causation. Which is not the same as suggesting that there is causation or even coincidence. Many things in the universe are neither coincidence nor a "higher power", but just the application of physical laws which may be hitherto unknown. Science marches on, whether you approve of not.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Neither you nor I have a glass eye. Does that coincidence astound you? No? Then it can be ignored. What are the odds? 0.999999?

The entire history of scientific inquiry it to conduct experiments to determine causation. But you can't proceed to trying to identify the causation until you determine if there really is improbable coincidence. So the methodology is to devise blind experiments against controls. The steps need to be followed in sequence. What I suggested serves the purpose of judging whether there is enough coincidence to indicate possible causation. Which is not the same as suggesting that there is causation or even coincidence. Many things in the universe are neither coincidence nor a "higher power", but just the application of physical laws which may be hitherto unknown. Science marches on, whether you approve of not.

Yeah, yeah, I got all that Day One in Statistics 101. I'm still wanting to know what your hypothesis is, the above is commentary on methodology....but methodolgy investigating what? The frequency of coincidence? You discover that and then you know.....what?

I maintain the the potential variables base is immense to the point of rendering attempts to form an investigatable database, useless. You would, as you have indicated, be using human judgment to define what is a normal coincidence and what is extraordinary. So right off the bat your experiment will be skewed by your personal standards regarding how amazing and rare certain coicidences are or are not. We would learn more about you from such an experiment then we would learn about presidential coincidences.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Yeah, yeah, I got all that Day One in Statistics 101. I'm still wanting to know what your hypothesis is, the above is commentary on methodology....but methodolgy investigating what? The frequency of coincidence? You discover that and then you know.....what?

I maintain the the potential variables base is immense to the point of rendering attempts to form an investigatable database, useless. You would, as you have indicated, be using human judgment to define what is a normal coincidence and what is extraordinary. So right off the bat your experiment will be skewed by your personal standards regarding how amazing and rare certain coicidences are or are not. We would learn more about you from such an experiment then we would learn about presidential coincidences.

Should science stop its inquiry into things that appear to defy conventional theory, just on the say-so of you flat-earthers? You're starting to sound like a Christian, automatically ridiculing everything that is not "written in your book".

My hypothesis is what I said it was. It is scientific method, when you see an event that seems non-random, to create a control group and see if the phenomenon recurs. Like Polk/Bush. Instead of using his time and talents to belabor my hypothesis, Johnny V went ahead and did it.

If I were to tell you that more than half the major league baseball teams are likely to have two players with the same birthday, you would choose to harangue me about whether some higher powers might have made this possible. Rather than to systematically inspect the phenomenon and seek a plausible explanation.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Should science stop its inquiry into things that appear to defy conventional theory, just on the say-so of you flat-earthers? You're starting to sound like a Christian, automatically ridiculing everything that is not "written in your book".

My hypothesis is what I said it was. It is scientific method, when you see an event that seems non-random, to create a control group and see if the phenomenon recurs. Like Polk/Bush. Instead of using his time and talents to belabor my hypothesis, Johnny V went ahead and did it.

If I were to tell you that more than half the major league baseball teams are likely to have two players with the same birthday, you would choose to harangue me about whether some higher powers might have made this possible. Rather than to systematically inspect the phenomenon and seek a plausible explanation.

"Haranque" you?

I am the one defending science here. I'm asking what the purpose of your experiment is.

And so far, I still do not know because you keep explaining methodology rather than purpose. Maybe you think that you have presented your hypothesis, but I cannot find it. I certainly cannot belabor that which I cannot identify, only belabor that I cannot identify it.

So..okay....you conduct your experiment...you find out whether or not the phenomena recurs....and if it does, what is your conclusion? If it does not, what is your conclusion? What knowledge will you be adding to the human experience beyond..."Yup, coincidences take place sometimes."? And if that is all that you are adding, well, that was something which we already knew.



.

[texdav]

I would bet if we imagine enough we could find that Nostradamus actually predicted both presidents would die as happened.

[slowlane2]

It's like the doomsayers claiming that the "end times" are upon us, interpreting the Book of Revelation as referring to whatever current natural disaster, bloody war, famine, epidemic, or despotic dictator is of the moment as heralding the end of the world.

The fact is, there are ALWAYS natural weather or geologic disasters, many wars going on, and many despotic dictators, at any given time in the world.

Again, for those who missed it, see http://snopes.com/history/american/lincoln-kennedy.asp

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

I am the one defending science here.
.

How is it "defending science" to assert that we should staunchly object to further inquiry into an observed phenomenon, and ridicule those who possess the curiosity to inquire? Banish "scientific inquiry" that has no visible purpose. Like "What causes an eclipse?" How in the world of that time could that knowledge have had any useful purpose?