4

He calls it the "Boiling Water Challenge".

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev-E6F1g3NE

If it is real, what condition is this man in now? I would guess that he'd be lucky to be alive.

Brian
  • 369
  • 1
  • 7
  • 1
    This question is still new, but has a lot of deleted comments and answers. Please remember your opinions are not highly-valued here. Supporting evidence is required. – Oddthinking Oct 24 '14 at 08:28
  • 2
    Please could you give an indication of what would constitute "supporting evidence" given that observations of questionable elements of the video appear not to be sufficient (e.g. lack of steam)? –  Oct 27 '14 at 07:47
  • @Dik It's a scale: Author admitting it is a hoax would support a "no"; strong and multiple negative circumstantial evidence, like fake videos by the same author or people recreating the video with the same means would support a "probably no"; opinions do not support answers; strong and multiple positive circumstantial evidence, like showing that there is a meditation practice which lets people endure boiling water would support a "probably yes"; strong scientific interest in this video, with lab reproduction would support a "yes". – Sklivvz Oct 27 '14 at 09:49
  • 3
    @Skl whether there is visible steam is not an opinion, it is an observable fact, likewise lack of visible bubbling of water in the pan (which is briefly visible). It seems odd that the existence of similar videos (at least one of which I would suggest is probably real) are O.K., but not discussion of observable evidence in the video itself. –  Oct 27 '14 at 13:13
  • Sure, you can use that (as long as you can convince that visible steam must be present ...with evidence. Note that not all steam is visible, as you might discover). It would then become weak evidence -- supporting a "probably not". In no case it's acceptable to dismiss a claim based on our own bias though. – Sklivvz Oct 27 '14 at 14:34
  • This is to say "No because there's no steam" is not acceptable. "Probably not, because steam should be visible according to [evidence]" is acceptable -- although there are probably way better answers that one could give. – Sklivvz Oct 27 '14 at 14:36
  • 1
    Are you saying that I need evidence to support the idea that boiling water gives off steam (which is visible when it condenses in the cooler ambient air)? While water not giving off visible steam is not absolute proof that it is not boiling, it is an observation which is more consistent with it not being boiling than it being boiling. Evidence is not binary. –  Oct 27 '14 at 14:50
  • The amount of steam expected to be visible depends on the water temperature, the air temperature and humidity, among other things. Evidence is close to binary in this case (either steam is visible or not), but the *interpretation* of the evidence is not, and should not be trivialized. At what temperature should water vapor be visible? – Sklivvz Oct 28 '14 at 01:40
  • 1
    Nobody is trivialising anything, however the absence of visible steam (or turbidity in the water) points towards the water not being boiling hot. Hence it is relevant to the question of whether the video actually shows boiling water being poured on someones head, even if it doesn't unambiguously answer the question (and nobody was claiming that it did). Given these restrictions, I don't see how this question could possibly be answered without further evidence from the originator of the video. –  Oct 28 '14 at 09:25
  • @Brian, the video has been removed from youtube. Can you find another instance of this claim? In the meantime, let's put this on hold. – Larian LeQuella Nov 03 '14 at 02:51

0 Answers0