South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

October 23, 2019, 11:08:05 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the forum rules before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Moon landing

 (Read 9175 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1538



WWW
« on: July 19, 2009, 12:35:26 PM »

Here is a picture of the Apollo 14 landing site by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. Of course the conspiracy crowd will call this part of the cover up but we did land on the moon 40 years ago.
Logged
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2009, 15:35:01 PM »

Did you mean to post this picture?

Logged
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1538



WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2009, 18:55:53 PM »

Yes, sorry my cut & paste capabilities not so good. Tongue
Logged
Wandapec
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 431


100% Proud Atheist/Skeptic


« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2009, 22:05:29 PM »

LRO sees Apollo landing sites. It is very exciting. Carte Blanche had quite a good evening tonight - doing a story on the moon landings and a discussion on the claims of alternative medicine.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2009, 10:55:01 AM by bluegray V » Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #4 on: July 20, 2009, 08:50:41 AM »

Should have posted this under general science and then moved conspiracy comments here?

This seem like a reversal in roles somehow. Sceptics upholding the landing and woo nuts questioning the evidence.

Oh wait, it is the *evidence* that makes the difference  Grin

I just wish we already had like a lunar colony going, that would have been so sci-fi and uber kewl.

Logged
Faerie
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 2113



« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2009, 09:03:58 AM »


I just wish we already had like a lunar colony going, that would have been so sci-fi and uber kewl.


Watch China.... they're stirring up all sorts of competitive notions again.
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #6 on: July 20, 2009, 09:22:01 AM »

Good for them!
Logged
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1538



WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 20, 2009, 16:26:46 PM »

Yes, we landed on the moon. At the time this was a huge achievement. But now it is "been there, done that and got the T shirt to prove it". Why there is a race now I don't know. There is nothing there. One thing that might work is to build a big telescope on the far side, but to go there just for the sake of going is pointless. Let the Chinese go.
Logged
Faerie
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 2113



« Reply #8 on: July 21, 2009, 08:32:50 AM »

Why there is a race now I don't know. There is nothing there. One thing that might work is to build a big telescope on the far side, but to go there just for the sake of going is pointless. Let the Chinese go.

A moon base, they want to build, now what do you think would happen if the Chinese built themselves a cosy little shack on the moon?  Do you not think it would become a war for ownership? That flag that the US planted is meaningless if there is a threat of another nation actually colonising the moon. Us humans are a jealous and warring race.
Logged
Wandapec
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 431


100% Proud Atheist/Skeptic


« Reply #9 on: July 21, 2009, 09:40:33 AM »

Why there is a race now I don't know. There is nothing there.

That's how the bantustan of Bophuthatswana was before Sol got in there. Maybe it's a massive property development conspiracy?   Tongue
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #10 on: July 31, 2009, 08:27:38 AM »

Cyghost raises an interesting point on nomenclature:
Quote
This seem like a reversal in roles somehow. Sceptics upholding the landing and woo nuts questioning the evidence

We generally refer to the claim that the moon landing never happened as a conspiracy theory. I think that, strictly speaking,  this is wrong.

Consider the following:

1. Conspiracy theories make positive, unsubstantiated claims.
2. Scepticism provisionally rejects positive claims.
3. "People have walked on the moon" is a positive claim.

So, to state "the moon landing was a hoax", is a provisional rejection of a positive claim, and therefore falls in the domain of scepticism.

Folks questioning the moon landing are sceptics, not conspiracy theorists!  Tongue

Mintaka



Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Online Online

Posts: 3753


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 31, 2009, 08:44:33 AM »

Folks questioning the moon landing are sceptics, not conspiracy theorists! Tongue
Given the weight of evidence for a moon landing and people having walked on its surface – evidence that, it is true, could have been forged but at what cost and for what reason? – as well as the magnitude and implausibility of the NASA/US government conspiracy that would be necessary to uphold such a fabrication, it would be more accurate to say, “Folks denying the moon landing are idiots.

'Luthon64
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #12 on: July 31, 2009, 09:47:51 AM »

So as the evidence for a positive claim accumulate, there comes a breaking point beyond which the extreme sceptic can no longer question the evidence, except at the risk of becoming an idiot?

Or is it more of a sliding scale?


Mintaka
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Online Online

Posts: 3753


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 31, 2009, 10:55:38 AM »

Well, yes, denial in the face of compelling evidence is merely obtuseness or stupidity, possibly both.  We give our provisional assent to contentions that are well supported.  Such assent can be withdrawn instantly should persuasive contrary evidence come to light.  In fact, it should not be hard to see that there must come a point at which at least some positive claims are sufficiently well evidenced for us to accept them as true.  Were it not so, we could never properly claim to know anything because almost everything would remain in doubt.

To continue questioning – as impartially as possible, please note – certain claims is of course healthy and useful, and can lead to new knowledge.  In many cases, it is just such questioning that has produced fresh advances in knowledge.  It is denial of accepted facts, i.e. conducting oneself as if accepted facts were false, that is silly and counterproductive, especially when the alternative position on offer is poorly justified and/or overly contrived, as in the case of the alleged moon landing hoax.

Thus, it is foolish, and perhaps even harmful, to deny such things as the near-sphericity of the Earth, the heliocentric model of the solar system, the Germ Theory of Disease, the Standard Model of subatomic physics, HIV as the pathogen of AIDS, or any number of other similarly well-established articles of knowledge.

However, recognising exactly at what point the reversal in burden-of-proof issues occurs, is itself a tricky epistemological problem.  As a decently reliable guide, one should look to the community of relevant experts: if they are largely agreed, it is unwise, as a non-expert, to hold a different view.  Sure, there have been instances where a body of experts has been mistaken, but such is much more the exception than the rule.  An ancillary problem in this context is recognising which groups actually qualify as “relevant experts.”  Needless to say, a constellation of astrologers, a snort of aromatherapists, a fusillade of psychics or a thicket of theologians should be assiduously avoided.  The decisive criterion here is that the discipline in question should be an accepted part of the corpus of science.

'Luthon64
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #14 on: July 31, 2009, 11:46:58 AM »

Thanks for the informative and useful reply, and you have preempted my next awkward question, which would have been: How do we know when evidence is sufficiently compelling? At some point, yes, we just need to trust the experts.

Quote
Needless to say, a constellation of astrologers, a snort of aromatherapists, a fusillade of psychics or a thicket of theologians should be assiduously avoided.

LOL Grin

Mintaka
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.449 seconds with 24 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page April 01, 2019, 12:19:06 PM
Privacy Policy