|
Post by echnaton on Apr 12, 2011 7:36:11 GMT -4
The level of proof takes into account the limits of knowledge, logic and the fundamental circularity of any philosophical system, such as science. The circularity arises from the fact that all systems of knowledge have axioms or statements that are untestable within the system. I think I may disagree here. Science is not a philosophical system, and it is not circulatory, as it does not rest on axioms, unless of course, you want to call the notion, that the world exists outside and independent from the human conscience an axiom. Perhaps a bit of explanation is in order. Science is a philosophy because it consists of ideas, reasoning, and logical inferences etc. whose purpose is to discern truth about nature. That is one of the original purposes of philosophy and those who lay the foundation of modern science were referred to as natural philosophers in their time. Science does differ greatly from many philosophical ideas today but the basic claim it has to being able to discern nature from our perception of nature is a philosophical claim. The axioms of science include that idea that nature, as in physical laws, were the same in the past as they are today and that those laws are universal rather than local. They are unprovable now, but a great deal of the claims of science rests on them. IIRC Godel also proved that any system of knowledge has at least one axiom. Or one concept that cannot be proven to exist within the system. It is a fundamental concept that gives the radical skeptics their footing and gives rise to the concept of the sufficiency of knowledge rather than the existence of absolute truth. It is one of the reasons that we know that those who claim absolute truth are wrong. Acknowledging that idea gives science its power to hold knowledge firmly yet conditionally. Got to go to work. Edited for clarity.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Apr 12, 2011 7:39:06 GMT -4
Given the mountain of evidence for the Apollo program we can conclude that there are no reasonable doubts that they went to the moon as stated.
Do you agree? Or do you have a reasonable doubt? So far you haven't raised one.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Apr 12, 2011 11:03:35 GMT -4
I think what we have is an HB wannabe. Someone who, for any number of a great selection of reasons, wants to believe in the Apollohoax, but is still too grounded intellectually to be oblivious to the blatant absurdity of the usual HB rubbish. So the only recourse is to seek refuge in the pseudo-intellectualism we are seeing. By using solipsistic arguments to demean the reality even if just on a philosophical technicality, it allows the HB wannabe to feel it is ok to doubt Apollo. Since it cannot be proven with absolute certainty, the HB can choose to believe whatever he wants. I think that is very likely the case, except that I'd add that this argument has, for the OP, the benefit of not having to argue any evidence whatsoever, so it may appeal to the intellectually lazy. (At least people like Moon Man actually tried advancing evidence.) I assume that the OP wants to be an iconoclast (no matter what the icon), and the solipsistic argument ("no one can ever be sure of anything") allows him to dismiss *anything* he wishes. Then, he can crow that he "won", even though he provided no evidence of anything other than he knows a little pop philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 12, 2011 12:58:49 GMT -4
I assume that the OP wants to be an iconoclast (no matter what the icon), and the solipsistic argument ("no one can ever be sure of anything") allows him to dismiss *anything* he wishes. Then, he can crow that he "won", even though he provided no evidence of anything other than he knows a little pop philosophy. That is a more charitable description than I've had to hold back from stating a few times. If the OP wants to discuss his philosophical position, he should go the the General Discussion area and do so in general terms without reference to Apollo. If he wants to discus Apollo in the Hoax Theory forum, he needs to join the rest of us in understanding the value of scientific and historical inquiry. His insistence on denying all ways of thinking but his own philosophy puts him in a camp as isolated from reality as most HBs, even if he doesn't believe in a hoax, per se.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 12, 2011 13:09:04 GMT -4
Okay, let me refute it. 1. NASA has rocks. Scientific examination of these rocks demonstrates they're from the Moon. 2. There are photographs of these rocks in the labs here on Earth. 3. There are photographs of these same rocks on the ground, prior to their collection. 4. The photos of the rocks on the ground often contain images of astronauts. 5. There are two possibilities. Either the rocks were photographed on and collected from the Moon by humans. Or they were collected by robots from the Moon and photographed on the Earth. 6. If they were collected by robots, how were the photographs created on the Earth? Were they photographed on a set made of Earthly material or a set made of lunar material? If the former, how were the rocks not contaminated by the Earthly material of the set? If the latter, how was the material for the set collected? 7. Additionally, the photographs of the rocks are interspersed with photos of the astronauts which can often be connected to video footage (for example, John Young's Jump Salute). If the rock photos were taken on Earth, then presumably the other photos were taken on the Earth too, which means the video footage must also have been recorded on the Earth. Yet the video footage shows actions which are unique to the Moon - objects behaving as though in a low gravity vacuum. How was this done? Therefore in postulating robots being used for the collection of rock samples, it logically follows that you need to be able to explain how the video footage was recorded. Please show me where my logic is faulty. You really didn't prove anything at all. Not what you were asked. You were asked where the logic was faulty. Now, prove beyond any doubt that you exist, and the conversation is worth continuing.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 12, 2011 13:37:29 GMT -4
I figure kimchijjigae might have missed this. So I'll repost and update it.
Let me reword it so you guys can understand. Something is possible if you can't disprove it.
I'm afraid you don't understand. Your claim has already failed as unsupported. Several people have used reductio ad absurdum to illustrate the vapidity of your position, but you seem unable to grasp this.
Worse, you have, over the course of several dozen posts, demonstrated a complete failure to learn anything about the subject, or even to demonstrate a coherent thought process which might permit you to make a useful observation at some point.
So, after 23+ pages, you're still just thrashing around insisting you have valid doubts, but you're no closer to convincing anyone than you were at the beginning. Your cause is not aided by your occasional childish outbursts, your failure to acknowledge that some people here actually - unlike you - know something about the subject, and your failure to actually learn anything, even when information is handed to you.
Personally, I would be embarrassed to make claims which showed such ignorance of a topic, and instead of continuing to wave my hands I'd go learn something about it before spouting off again. But to each his pwn.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 12, 2011 14:23:07 GMT -4
Do you understand the difference between "possible" and "probable"? It is possible that the lunar samples were returned to Earth using robots, but it is not probable because there is no evidence supporting it (and there would be). The evidence supports the claim that the Apollo astronauts returned the samples to Earth... therefore NASAs explanation is the most probable one. this is the only rational poster we have left. Ummm... everyone but you seems to agree with me. You're the odd man out. No, it's a judgement based on the weight of the available evidence. You believe all theories for how the lunar samples got to Earth are equally valid. They are not. There is no evidence at all that robotic probes were used, therefore that theory carries less weight (none) than the official explanation that astronauts retrieved the samples. The two theories are not equal. I don't think anyone here would argue that any religious belief is scientific, although I would say agnostics are at least being neutral which is the position I think most scientists would take if there was no evidence for something. But we're not talking about invisible Gods or supernatural magic. We're talking about recent historic events that involved real people. To dismiss all of the evidence that supports Apollo is irrational.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 12, 2011 14:28:31 GMT -4
when you say something is probable, well, that is a value judgment, thus it doesn't really have any "scientific" value at all. "Rolling a pair of 6-sided dice, a total value of 7 is more probable than a total value of 12 or 2" The above statement is a value judgment? It has no scientific value at all? If you are using the popularly-understood but incorrect definition of atheism, "The absolute assertion that no gods exist." Under the correct definition, "The disbelief in a god," everyone is an atheist, since nobody believes every god claim. Those who self-identify as atheists simply disbelieve all god claims, whereas "believers" disbelieve all but a limited set of god claims. I actually do see a connection between theism and the moon hoax debate. Many HB's essentially classify NASA and/or the gub'mint as a malevolent deity which has whatever abilities are necessary to carry out any fiendish plot they ascribe to it, such as magically produce fake moon rocks, launch secret networks of radio relay satellites, assassinate naysayers or whistleblowers with impunity, etc., without presenting the slimmest shred of evidence to support these claims.
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Apr 12, 2011 16:32:12 GMT -4
when you say something is probable, well, that is a value judgment, thus it doesn't really have any "scientific" value at all. "Rolling a pair of 6-sided dice, a total value of 7 is more probable than a total value of 12 or 2" The above statement is a value judgment? It has no scientific value at all? If you are using the popularly-understood but incorrect definition of atheism, "The absolute assertion that no gods exist." Under the correct definition, "The disbelief in a god," everyone is an atheist, since nobody believes every god claim. Those who self-identify as atheists simply disbelieve all god claims, whereas "believers" disbelieve all but a limited set of god claims. I actually do see a connection between theism and the moon hoax debate. Many HB's essentially classify NASA and/or the gub'mint as a malevolent deity which has whatever abilities are necessary to carry out any fiendish plot they ascribe to it, such as magically produce fake moon rocks, launch secret networks of radio relay satellites, assassinate naysayers or whistleblowers with impunity, etc., without presenting the slimmest shred of evidence to support these claims. atheism =/= agnosticism -1111111111111111111111111111111111111
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Apr 12, 2011 16:37:46 GMT -4
this is the only rational poster we have left. Ummm... everyone but you seems to agree with me. You're the odd man out. No, it's a judgement based on the weight of the available evidence. You believe all theories for how the lunar samples got to Earth are equally valid. They are not. There is no evidence at all that robotic probes were used, therefore that theory carries less weight (none) than the official explanation that astronauts retrieved the samples. The two theories are not equal. I don't think anyone here would argue that any religious belief is scientific, although I would say agnostics are at least being neutral which is the position I think most scientists would take if there was no evidence for something. But we're not talking about invisible Gods or supernatural magic. We're talking about recent historic events that involved real people. To dismiss all of the evidence that supports Apollo is irrational. I don't dismiss the evidences, but at least I admit that I have limited faculties which prevent me to ascertain it as a truth. Would you bet your life that Apollo was not a hoax in exchange for the possibility of winning 10 bucks? I rather not take the risk. It would be hilarious though if in 50 years we learned it was a hoax. I would roll on the floor laughing when I would think of you guys.
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Apr 12, 2011 16:49:32 GMT -4
They said that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. Do you believe that? I don't know, but I certainly wouldn't bet that it did.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 12, 2011 17:28:12 GMT -4
I don't dismiss the evidences, but at least I admit that I have limited faculties which prevent me to ascertain it as a truth. The only faculties you need to judge whether Apollo really happened are your mental faculties. But yes, they do seem to be limited judging by your behaviour here. I can't imagine a scenario where it would be necessary for me to bet my life on whether or not Apollo really happened. Would I be willing to risk my life to go to the Moon in an authentic Apollo spacecraft? Hell yes, I would! I am confident that the people and technology responsible for sending Apollo to the Moon was up to the task. Just don't ask me to fly it. Well, if this forum is still around in 50 years I will remove the ban on your account and we can discuss who was right and who was wrong then. That is entirely irrelevant to whether or not Apollo really went to the Moon and is off topic in this thread. But I guess that doesn't matter now that you've gotten yourself banned again.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 12, 2011 17:44:46 GMT -4
...I have limited faculties which prevent me to ascertain it as a truth. I am in complete agreement with this. However not everyone is burdened with your limitations. BTW, how do you define "truth" in this sentence?ETA Hadn't noticed he was banned, so there is way he can answer the question, not that I expected a reply anyway. After 24 pages the OP and his philosophy of denyalism was starting to wear thin. It could have been an interesting conversation if he had something to contribute.
|
|
|
Post by chew on Apr 12, 2011 20:25:53 GMT -4
He claimed there is no way to prove beyond any doubt we went to the Moon then he claims victory knowing full well ahead of time it can't be done. That's an intellectual coward's bet. Kinda like making us bet in a Harlem Globetrotters/Generals game but we have to pick the Generals.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 13, 2011 0:54:24 GMT -4
This is quite correct. Atheism is the absence of belief in a god claim. Agnosticism is the absence of knowledge as to the truth of a (typically theistic) claim. They answer different questions, "What do you believe?" and "What do you know?" respectively. As such, the two descriptions are by no means mutually exclusive. One can claim to be gnostic or agnostic on either side of the theism coin.
|
|