Jay and Brian O'Leary May 11, 2010 11:01:35 GMT -4
Post by JayUtah on May 11, 2010 11:01:35 GMT -4
HBs love to play people off against each other.
David Percy was notorious for this during the time when he was actually pretending to pay attention to his critics.
They never allow for differences of opinion, for different assumptions, or for honest mistakes.
Or for legitimate variance in suggested alternatives.
Conspiracists often employ the indirect argument: e.g., "It must be artificial light doing this because no feature of natural light could cause it." This example doesn't actually show proof of artificial light; it proposes to falsify competing hypotheses instead, so that the desired conclusion holds by default.
In order for this to work as proof, the proponent must demonstrate that he has completely eliminated the competing hypotheses, and that the hypotheses he treats are all that can exist. Naturally no conspiracist does this, but it does tend to fool people who would only casually object to the hoax theory.
Consequently the appropriate rebuttal identifies alternatives that the proponent has not yet considered: "What about reflected light from the lunar surface?" or "Perhaps the camera exposure settings artificially amplify the fill light." In order to continue to hold his desired belief by default, he must falsify each and every one of them without shifting the burden of proof.
Instead the conspiracist often points out that the proposed causes are contradictory (although the two examples above don't really contradict each other). Or he points out that the proponents "can't agree on an explanation." He doesn't understand that only one of them needs to hold in order to refute his default hypothesis.
Again, David Percy actually attempted such a defense: www.aulis.com/apollo-investigation-2003.htm
As the kids would say: *facepalm*. I respond here: www.clavius.org/bibaulis2003.html