|
Post by chew on Mar 2, 2011 12:26:38 GMT -4
Well, great more copy and paste. For a proof to be of any value, we must prove that the proof itself is valid. No one can prove that the set of arguments they are using is completely valid, because they lack technical knowledge. It is sad to see people behaving so irrationally. Verifying that a comment has been copied and pasted is very easy these days. I challenge you to find any comment in this thread that has been copied and pasted.
|
|
|
Post by rob260259 on Mar 2, 2011 12:29:07 GMT -4
It is sad to see people behaving so irrationally. LOL Just like your 'rational' comments on YouTube...
|
|
|
Post by twik on Mar 2, 2011 12:29:07 GMT -4
Since you admit that the evidence for the moon landings is at least as good as that which can result in someone being jailed for life or even executed, what is your point?
Yes, I suppose that it is possible that you are a brain in a jar, with everything you know and sense being sent to you as an electronic hallucination. But since this applies to absolutely everything, why do you make a particular point about the moon landings? Is it simply that you want to believe that they are fake, and that this is your way of explaining away all the extensive evidence that they happened? "Well, it's only been proved to a reasonable doubt, so I'll keep believing in the unreasonable ones?"
|
|
|
Post by twik on Mar 2, 2011 12:37:01 GMT -4
For a proof to be of any value, we must prove that the proof itself is valid. And when does this end? After we prove that the proof is valid, how do we prove that the proof of the proof is valid? At what point does the snake swallow its own tail? No one can prove that the set of arguments they are using is completely valid, because they lack technical knowledge. This would make more sense, if you defined who "they" are. Many people on this board have extensive technical knowledge. Are the "they" who are using arguments you believe are not completely valid the same "they" as the people who lack technical knowledge? It is sad to see people behaving so irrationally. I agree with this statement, but probably not in the way you meant it.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Mar 2, 2011 13:12:05 GMT -4
kimchi jjigae does not exist. At the very least, he cannot prove 100% that he is not a spambot.
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Mar 2, 2011 13:28:56 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Mar 2, 2011 14:12:51 GMT -4
Well, great more copy and paste. For a proof to be of any value, we must prove that the proof itself is valid. No one can prove that the set of arguments they are using is completely valid, because they lack technical knowledge. It is sad to see people behaving so irrationally. Sorry, lost me there. I did not cut and paste. I explained how I can verify what went on. Can you explain why they did not land? Do you understand the technical aspect to blow it out of the water. I await your explanation as I enjoy learning.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 2, 2011 14:17:25 GMT -4
Well, great more copy and paste. For a proof to be of any value, we must prove that the proof itself is valid. No one can prove that the set of arguments they are using is completely valid, because they lack technical knowledge. It is sad to see people behaving so irrationally. Kimchijjgae, I can't force you to show the members of this forum some respect, but I can decide whether or not you are able to post here. If you want to continue posting in this forum you had better stop insulting us.Saying we are just copying & pasting our arguments without understanding them is insulting. While it may be true that some people blindly believe Apollo landed on the Moon without giving it any thought, that is not true of ANY of the people in this forum. Most of us have been debating the hoax theory for years. We understand the hoax believers arguments better than they do. We understand how Apollo got to the Moon and back. So telling us that we don't understand the facts, that we're just blindly arguing based on what other people have told us, is wrong. If your entire argument is that no one here can be 100% sure that Apollo really landed on the Moon then we've agreed with you. Only the 12 men who claimed to have walked on the Moon can be 100% sure. But I don't think we have to be 100% sure in order to be reasonably convinced. We don't have to study the Moon rocks ourselves, or travel to the Moon to see the lunar landers first hand. We can base our beliefs on whether or not NASA provides a convincing argument... and they have. NASAs story just makes sense. There are no contradictions or holes in their story. They can tell you anything you want to know about how they got to the Moon, right down to minor details like how much ice formed on the outside of the Saturn V rocket prior to it's launch. The hoax theory, on the other hand, is full of contradictions and holes. Not a single hoax theorist has ever offered a complete alternative to the official story that makes sense. You will never find two conspiracy theorists who agree on exactly what they believe NASA did, there will always be inconsistencies in their stories. That is why I believe NASA and not the hoax theory.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Mar 2, 2011 14:23:42 GMT -4
At the very least, he cannot prove 100% that he is not a spambot. Maybe IBM is putting Watson though a secret field test. So far, I'd say it's failing epically at question identification and answer retrieval, despite its performance on Jeopardy!. (That punctuation should drive gillian nuts ;D )
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Mar 2, 2011 14:26:15 GMT -4
I can feel some frustration accumulating here. To sum the frustration up: If you want to have an discussion about epistemology, then do that. But please don't try to shoehorn Apollo in as a special example of your epistemological doubts that we do not necessarily share.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 2, 2011 14:29:47 GMT -4
Maybe IBM is putting Watson though a secret field test. So far, I'd say it's failing epically at question identification and answer retrieval, despite its performance on Jeopardy!. (That punctuation should drive gillian nuts ;D ) Meh. I've seen much worse, though I can rewrite that sentence for you, if you're planning to use it elsewhere. You can even just copy-paste what I say! But seriously, you're right. There is one person here who is showing evidence of not thinking out responses and just blindly repeating a belief.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Mar 2, 2011 15:09:25 GMT -4
Well, great more copy and paste. With further thought, it seems to me that kimchijjigae is not accusing anyone of plagiarism. He seems to be saying that the answers made here are the same kinds of answered he has received elsewhere in response to the peculiar mix of epistemological doubts and lack of factual content about the subject of his posts. This interpretation raises the question of why he feels the responses he has gotten here are are so similar to what others have said to him on different topics as to seem to be "cut and paste?" Any response to this, kimchijjigae?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Mar 2, 2011 15:16:36 GMT -4
Well, great more copy and paste.Feel free to identify a copy-and-paste job in this thread, and why what was pasted was invalid. For a proof to be of any value, we must prove that the proof itself is valid. No one can prove that the set of arguments they are using is completely valid, because they lack technical knowledge. *Cough* - Undergraduate degree in space physics
- Master's degrees in electrical engineering, systems engineering
- >19 years experience in aerospace
- Experience in commercial, civil, and military programs, including three Shuttle missions as a payload controller
etc. It is sad to see people behaving so irrationally. I don't see people behaving irrationally. I see you accusing folks of ignorance and some form of plagiarism, and you have made an incorrect claim or two about some forms of evidence, and you haven't produced any evidence of your own. But there's still plenty of time for this to be a productive discussion.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Mar 2, 2011 17:20:36 GMT -4
The hoax theory, on the other hand, is full of contradictions and holes. Not a single hoax theorist has ever offered a complete alternative to the official story that makes sense. You will never find two conspiracy theorists who agree on exactly what they believe NASA did, there will always be inconsistencies in their stories. That is why I believe NASA and not the hoax theory. So true. The theory is like a bad patchwork quilt.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Mar 2, 2011 18:01:10 GMT -4
LOL Just like your 'rational' comments on YouTube... Um where would that be? Searching for that, I just get lots of korean stew recipes.
|
|