View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Video: Debunking Mythbusters' debunking of moon hoax

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Video: Debunking Mythbusters debunking of moon hoax

Postby ProfWag » 25 Jan 2010, 21:59

Changeling wrote:
And THAT's the difference between critical thinking and non-critical thinking. The USSR wanted nothing more than to beat us to the moon.

No. Critical thinking requires more than assuming that the popular narratives on US-USSR relations are correct. A critical thinker may ask a question along the lines of "How is it that a country which was relatively backwards industrially, and which was devastated during WW2 and which was governed by an inefficient communist bureaucracy, within a few years not only became a major rival to the US, but beat the US into space?"
A critical thinker may also ask why nobody's bothered with a manned mission to the moon since the early 1970s.

Well, I will agree that critical thinking may involve more (or less) than what I mentioned, but essentially, what they taught me in grad school (and what I teach now) is that critical thinking involves exploring ALL of the evidence, evaluating the source of information, the credibility of the information, and relevance of a certain point (to name a few). Critical thinking involves looking at the whole picture to reach a conclusion. As for the moon landing, the question as to why nobody has bothered to go back to the moon is really irrelevant. The conspiracy is whether or not we went there in the first place. Additionally, understanding US/USSR relations is important to understanding some aspects of the moon trips, but not the whole picture as to whether or not the US landing people on the moon on multiple occasations.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54






Re: Video: Debunking Mythbusters debunking of moon hoax

Postby NinjaPuppy » 25 Jan 2010, 22:23

ProfWag wrote:Well, I will agree that critical thinking may involve more (or less) than what I mentioned, but essentially, what they taught me in grad school (and what I teach now) is that critical thinking involves exploring ALL of the evidence, evaluating the source of information, the credibility of the information, and relevance of a certain point (to name a few). Critical thinking involves looking at the whole picture to reach a conclusion.

But how can you look at the whole picture if you are requiring evaluating the source of information, the credibility of the information, and relevance of a certain point? Who decides if a source is credible? Who decides that certain information is to be included or thrown out?

Any so called reputable scientist or person in that field who claims that they have seen a ghost is suddenly mocked by the rest of the scientific community and labeled a quack.

ProfWag wrote:As for the moon landing, the question as to why nobody has bothered to go back to the moon is really irrelevant. The conspiracy is whether or not we went there in the first place. Additionally, understanding US/USSR relations is important to understanding some aspects of the moon trips, but not the whole picture as to whether or not the US landing people on the moon on multiple occasations.

Who has decided that the question about not going back to the moon is irrelevant? Why is it irrelevant? Does it not warrant discussion and debate to verify the original need to do it in the first place?
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Video: Debunking Mythbusters debunking of moon hoax

Postby ProfWag » 25 Jan 2010, 22:52

NinjaPuppy wrote:But how can you look at the whole picture if you are requiring evaluating the source of information, the credibility of the information, and relevance of a certain point? Who decides if a source is credible? Who decides that certain information is to be included or thrown out?

Any so called reputable scientist or person in that field who claims that they have seen a ghost is suddenly mocked by the rest of the scientific community and labeled a quack.

Who has decided that the question about not going back to the moon is irrelevant? Why is it irrelevant? Does it not warrant discussion and debate to verify the original need to do it in the first place?

To answer your first questions(s), you do. You decide if a source is credible. You ask questions such as (what is this person's knowledge of the situation? Is there a negative history? What are this person's qualifications? Is there a motive for conspiring a theory?
I disagree that people are labeled a quack if they see a ghost. Many fine, upstanding, honest people have seen a ghost. Doesn't mean they exist or that peers think they are off their rocker for believing in what they saw.
And finally, I, myself, have decided that the question about going back to the moon is irrelevant. What does it matter if we have or haven't gone back in 35 years? If man climbs the most rugged and dangerous mountain in the world, then someone has been there. If no one goes back for 40 years, does that mean the person who climbed that mountain didn't do it? I have seen the space shuttle and the ISS with my own eyes as it glides through the skies so I am convinced, myself anyway, that space exploration is possible and has been the focus of NASA since the moon landings. We went to the moon, gathered data, studied it, and continue to study it. There are much safer methods in place today that can help us garner information without having to risk more lives in physically landing people there for the time being. After the conclusion of the Apollo missions, we focused on the Space Shuttle and Mars. There is only so much money in NASAs budget.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Video: Debunking Mythbusters debunking of moon hoax

Postby NinjaPuppy » 26 Jan 2010, 01:12

ProfWag wrote:To answer your first questions(s), you do. You decide if a source is credible. You ask questions such as (what is this person's knowledge of the situation? Is there a negative history? What are this person's qualifications? Is there a motive for conspiring a theory?
I disagree that people are labeled a quack if they see a ghost. Many fine, upstanding, honest people have seen a ghost. Doesn't mean they exist or that peers think they are off their rocker for believing in what they saw.

So if the average person on the street makes a claim, it's nothing? If the average person who believes there might be a CT brewing is really up to something? Granted, that's probably the first thing that I might think if I apply critical thinking but what about the claim? Why aren't hundreds or thousands of similar claims by average people considered something of interest in the whole process?
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Video: Debunking Mythbusters debunking of moon hoax

Postby ProfWag » 26 Jan 2010, 01:17

NinjaPuppy wrote:
ProfWag wrote:To answer your first questions(s), you do. You decide if a source is credible. You ask questions such as (what is this person's knowledge of the situation? Is there a negative history? What are this person's qualifications? Is there a motive for conspiring a theory?
I disagree that people are labeled a quack if they see a ghost. Many fine, upstanding, honest people have seen a ghost. Doesn't mean they exist or that peers think they are off their rocker for believing in what they saw.

So if the average person on the street makes a claim, it's nothing? If the average person who believes there might be a CT brewing is really up to something? Granted, that's probably the first thing that I might think if I apply critical thinking but what about the claim? Why aren't hundreds or thousands of similar claims by average people considered something of interest in the whole process?

I'm not sure I understand your question because I think they are considered. There are thousands and thousands of people who claim the moon landing was a hoax. One person standing on a soap box can have a theory about a conspiracy, but it probably wouldn't generate any discussion unless hundreds or thousands of people believe that there may be something to it. There are usually parts to a good theory that can make everyone sit back and question, but again, who is saying there is a conspiracy?
Take our beloved Richard Gage. If he was a lawyer rather than an architect, would anybody listen to him about how buildings fall?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Video: Debunking Mythbusters debunking of moon hoax

Postby NinjaPuppy » 26 Jan 2010, 01:59

Perhaps the word 'conspiracy' is the wrong word. Originally it was 'debunking'.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Video: Debunking Mythbusters' debunking of moon hoax

Postby Scepcop » 13 Nov 2012, 17:29

Mythbusters caught using fraud to try to disprove the photographic discrepancies on the moon by 2 Russian scientists. Shame on them.

http://www.aulis.com/mythbusters.htm
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Video: Debunking Mythbusters' debunking of moon hoax

Postby SydneyPSIder » 13 Nov 2012, 18:48

Scepcop wrote:Mythbusters caught using fraud to try to disprove the photographic discrepancies on the moon by 2 Russian scientists. Shame on them.

http://www.aulis.com/mythbusters.htm

well, suspected fraud. good thing there was an attempted scientific replication by an independent researcher -- albeit the old cold war enemies! We need to see a replication that is believable, we can see the whole thing, no room for trickery, that's the kind of thing our pseudoscep friends like to demand, isn't it?
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Previous

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron