moon landing skepticism (ASMO)

[computerex]

I am just glad that the idea of the Moon landing hoax is not as popular as what it sometimes seems. According to Wikipedia:

"A 1999 poll by the The Gallup Organization found that 89 percent of the US public believed the landing was genuine, while 6 percent did not and 5 percent were undecided."

Well, it says US public. If you are an American, and you don't believe in the moon landing, you are either really anti-American or you have something wrong with you. What about the rest of the world? According to my Geography textbook, US only makes up 9% of the world's total landmass.

Give me ANY claim, and I can refute it.

Not that hard, any claim can be refuted, there are statistics to support nearly every argument. There are people arguing weather or not the moon exists for god's sakes!

I say, the losers who feel it necessary to crap on the greatest accomplishment in the history of humankind.

I agree with you 100%, we don't want people to crap on our swiss cheese!

 

[Belisarius]

The very latest over on YouTube is that Luna has a breathable atmosphere!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9ASTvjNBaAw

Watch it at your own risk... I won't be responsible for heart attacks, burst blood vessels, attacks of hilarity or any other extreme reaction

 

[Woo482]

WHAT THE! Guys I am going to the sun its nice and cool

 

[bujin]

The crew of Apollo 8 might object to putting creationism on the same level as Moon-Hoaxism.

They can object all they want, but they are both pretty much the same. You have people claiming that there are reasons the predominant explanation is wrong, and provide scientific-sounding explanations in support of their idea which sound good to the layperson, but are grossly misinformed and inaccurate.

 

[to be]

The ultimate problem is derived from:

(a) Absolutely nothing can be proven absolutely
(b) People are stupid, and will believe what they want

 

[ijuin]

To me the best proof of the Apollo Landings is that the Soviets didn't cry foul. They had plenty of experts on space and on photography, etc., and they stood to gain a lot of international status by proving that the Apollo Landings were fake. That they didn't claim the landings to be fake tells me that they were plenty convinced.

 

[Missioncmdr]

Well, it says US public. If you are an American, and you don't believe in the moon landing, you are either really anti-American or you have something wrong with you. What about the rest of the world? According to my Geography textbook, US only makes up 9% of the world's total landmass.

Maybe we should make our own poll. We have plenty of users from the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, Asia, among other places.

 

[computerex]

Maybe we should make our own poll. We have plenty of users from the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, Asia, among other places.

One thing I have learnt is that statistics are almost never valid: http://www.frieslandav.com/orbitermap/

 

[Missioncmdr]

One thing I have learnt is that statistics are almost never valid: http://www.frieslandav.com/orbitermap/

Alright, so we have a lot of users from the United States and Europe.

 

[Chipstone306]

To me the best proof of the Apollo Landings is that the Soviets didn't cry foul. They had plenty of experts on space and on photography, etc., and they stood to gain a lot of international status by proving that the Apollo Landings were fake. That they didn't claim the landings to be fake tells me that they were plenty convinced.

You hit the nail square on the head. If there was ANY DOUBT that the moon missions were faked Russia would have had a fit.

 

[Coolhand]

The very latest over on YouTube is that Luna has a breathable atmosphere!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9ASTvjNBaAw

Watch it at your own risk... I won't be responsible for heart attacks, burst blood vessels, attacks of hilarity or any other extreme reaction

Coast to Coast AM, I love that show, pure comedy gold... And John Lear is hilarious in that one.

 

[NukeET]

One thing I have learnt is that statistics are almost never valid: http://www.frieslandav.com/orbitermap/

"Liars can figure, and, figures can lie..."

This one was old when I was a kid.

 

[Linguofreak]

They can object all they want, but they are both pretty much the same. You have people claiming that there are reasons the predominant explanation is wrong, and provide scientific-sounding explanations in support of their idea which sound good to the layperson, but are grossly misinformed and inaccurate.

I didn't say there wasn't some flawed thinking in the creationist camp. I find that there tends to be a fair amount of bad science, bad religion, and bad logic on both sides of the whole affair. One error that shows up on both sides is the belief that science can do anything to prove (on the creationist side) or disprove (on the naturalist side) that the world was created by God or that God exists.

Science works through empirical observation, which only works when consistent tests can be made upon the object of observation. But when the object of observation is an omnipotent deity, or any act of that deity, no consistent test can be made. You'll only get consistent results if God decides to play along.

The long and the short of it is that science is only valid within this universe, and even then only when God is not actively interfering. It is thus not valid for saying anything about God or any act of God, but both creationists and naturalists tend to forget this.

 

[Ghostrider]

WHAT THE! Guys I am going to the sun its nice and cool

Only if you land at night.

 

[n0mad23]

This thread's really got me thinking about critical thinking skills, and how easy it is to get stuck in paradigmatic quagmires.

Is it me, or don't Descartes and Plato perhaps have a little more influence on us today than they still should? Specifically, I'm referring to artificial dichotomies. We're in a post-Einsteinian world where quantum physics are cool; are we really limited to yes/no answers most of the time?

NukeET's quote, "Liars can figure, and, figures can lie..." (fine as it is) reflects this to a certain degree, as it's usually a little more complicated. Consider the bell curve in practical application. Here in the US, the electricity running through our walls is 110 volts (except sometimes behind major appliances). But how often is that current 110 volts? It occupies the apex of the bell curve right? It's a simplified interpretation but confuses the fact. How many sides does a coin really have?

In the interest of avoiding confusion about the nature of this post, I'd like to point out that critical thinking (which I think we all approve of) requires that - critical thinking. Are we really sure that we have empirical evidence before us, or are they in fact beliefs that we're espousing as evidence?

The most attractive part of the scientific approach to me is that when it's working well, it's anti-dogmatic. The key term here is of course, "working well."

Not that long ago, bleeding patients of bad humors was good science. I still don't know many people that believe Chinese medicine works.

 

[bujin]

The long and the short of it is that science is only valid within this universe, and even then only when God is not actively interfering. It is thus not valid for saying anything about God or any act of God, but both creationists and naturalists tend to forget this.

In creationism terms, yes. In monotheistic religious terms, their idea of God is empirically testable, and has so far failed all such tests.

Creationists fall into two camps, those who believe the Genesis account is factual (and that the world is between 6 and 10 thousand years old), and those who believe that God initially set the universe in motion. The people in the first category are clearly wrong because (a) evidence from multiple sources show that the earth is 4.55 billion years old, (b) evidence shows how the Big Bang and the formation of the universe is nothing like that depicted in the Genesis story, (c) the Genesis story is internally inconsistent - two different accounts in subsequent chapters, and (d) the elements of the creation story can be found in far older myths from other cultures around the region.

The idea of the Abrahamic God setting off the universe is probably untestable since, as you say, he's outside the universe. Having said that, read Victor Stenger's "God: The Failed Hypothesis" to see how the idea of an intelligent creator is not necessary to explain the beginning of the universe. But the idea of the Abrahamic God then interfering in our daily lives is most certainly testable.

But this is supposed to be about the MLH.

 

[Messierhunter]

But the idea of the Abrahamic God then interfering in our daily lives is most certainly testable.

I'm sorry, but this just flat out wrong. There are lots of junk scientists out there who seem to think this premise is true, but it's just false. How are you going to test the existence of God, even one who occasionally decides to interfere? It's not testable, it's not something that science can say anything about one way or the other. How are you going to construct a hypothesis that says "if there's a God who occassionally interferes, then X should not be true." What is X?

You can't force God to show up and interfere, so you can't construct a test which could conclusive deny His existence. Some researchers have tried to do just that, and then make the claim that God doesn't exist because there should have been an effect if He did, but that's about as effective as sampling X number of stars for intelligent radio signals and then concluding that no intelligent radio signals could ever be detected from any of the remaining solar systems. Science can not monitor every single isolated incident that has ever occured, so it's impossible for science to say that no incident has ever occured because of interference from God.

 

[jedidia]

It would be interesting to see the hoax theorists explain this:

What the heck did they have a hammer for? it's alot of dead weight, you can't fix anything with it anyways (unless your called Lev...)

 

[thomasantony]

What the heck did they have a hammer for? it's alot of dead weight, you can't fix anything with it anyways (unless your called Lev...)

Well they were also geologists or lunar geologists. They used the hammer to break of pieces of moon rock.

~
Thomas

 

[bujin]

I'm sorry, but this just flat out wrong. There are lots of junk scientists out there who seem to think this premise is true, but it's just false. How are you going to test the existence of God, even one who occasionally decides to interfere? It's not testable, it's not something that science can say anything about one way or the other. How are you going to construct a hypothesis that says "if there's a God who occassionally interferes, then X should not be true." What is X?

You can't force God to show up and interfere, so you can't construct a test which could conclusive deny His existence. Some researchers have tried to do just that, and then make the claim that God doesn't exist because there should have been an effect if He did, but that's about as effective as sampling X number of stars for intelligent radio signals and then concluding that no intelligent radio signals could ever be detected from any of the remaining solar systems. Science can not monitor every single isolated incident that has ever occured, so it's impossible for science to say that no incident has ever occured because of interference from God.

I'm not wrong, but since this thread is about the MLH, I won't go into it.

If you want to see how there would be evidence for the existence of an interfering God, read either Why Won't God Heal Amputees? (Google it), or Victor Stenger's "God: The Failed Hypothesis".

I should clarify, however, it's not about testing the existence of God. It's about testing what religious people claim about God. Most of the claims that religious people make (particularly to do with God answering prayers) are very much testable. It's not about putting God into the lab, but there are so many people out there who claim that he has answered their prayers, there should be some evidence of it readily available. Unfortunately, what you tend to see is that the claim that God has answered prayers is taken from a very narrow viewpoint, and the claimant never thinks fully about what the implications are if God really HAD answered their prayers.