|
Post by echnaton on Apr 10, 2011 22:11:37 GMT -4
Btw, all I argued for was that no one knows with certainty whether we went or not. I certainly won the debate, it seems. You certainly seem certain about the uncertainty of a certain position.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 10, 2011 22:13:00 GMT -4
Again and again, I have said it like a thousand time, but I will say it again. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I don't have any position and I am playing the devil's advocate right now. So you admit that you are not posting here to discuss the moon hoax, that makes you a troll.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 10, 2011 22:19:08 GMT -4
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 21 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 gillianren on Apr 10, 2011 22:41:40 GMT -4
Btw, all I argued for was that no one knows with certainty whether we went or not. I certainly won the debate, it seems. Well, now, that depends. 1. We have not yet established that you exist. You can't prove it beyond any doubt. 2. But let's assume for the sake of discussion that you do. We have agreed with the purely philosophical point that from a certain stance, no one can ever be totally sure of anything. 3. However, we have shown that, if we are to use the standards people use about things in everyday life, you don't know what you're talking about and the weight of the evidence is behind Apollo. "Skepticism" is really only denial wearing a funny hat. So I suspect that, no, no one will ever think you've won unless they agreed with you going in. But of course I can't prove that, can I?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Apr 11, 2011 0:54:35 GMT -4
Btw, all I argued for was that no one knows with certainty whether we went or not. I certainly won the debate, it seems. Won? Against whom? Did it pass by you that every other poster here agrees with that idea -- that, yes, everything is possible, and nothing is provable. Its trivially true. Trivially because everyone already knows it ("Hey, look everyone, I just discovered birds can fly!") and trivially because it isn't useful (it is POSSIBLE there is a gift-wrapped candy-apple red convertible outside just waiting for me to discover it. The chances of it being so are so low, however, it is literally not worth to effort to go outside and look.)
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Apr 11, 2011 4:13:50 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Apr 11, 2011 4:55:38 GMT -4
After all these pages, the only thing I am certain about is that Halcyon Dayz needs to clean his garage out more often. Those dragons can be hard to shift once they get comfy.
|
|
|
Post by kallewirsch on Apr 11, 2011 7:23:06 GMT -4
It is not impossible that I could keep doing this until the heat death of the Universe... But first you have to proof that there are such things as a universe or a heat death.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Apr 11, 2011 9:26:42 GMT -4
I am saying that it is possible men landed on the moon, but it's also possible that they could have brought samples with robots. I take it for granted that something is possible unless you refute it. Refute it then. 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.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Apr 11, 2011 12:23:02 GMT -4
I think it's possible that you don't exist - that you're an induced hallucination by a malicious villain who really has me as a brain in a jar.
Therefore, I win the debate. People who don't exist cannot win anything.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Apr 11, 2011 12:28:36 GMT -4
Btw, all I argued for was that no one knows with certainty whether we went or not. I certainly won the debate, it seems. It's possible you won but not very probable.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Apr 11, 2011 12:34:38 GMT -4
If one is totally honest, it is impossible to prove, with 100% certainty that any given person is real, even when that person is trying to prove it to themselves.
Which is kinda neat, but utterly useless. So the response must be "so what?" What are you trying to prove with this pointless, useless assertion, even if it is 'true' for a given value of truth?
Other things it's impossible to prove conclusively: That gravity is always attractive. That the Universe wasn't created five seconds ago and that all of everyone's memories of everything were created at that time. That the Universe exists at all.
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Apr 11, 2011 12:55:11 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.
This of course leads to the absurdity of essentially trying to argue equivalence with an implausible web of conjecture and solid mountain of evidence.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 11, 2011 13:14:43 GMT -4
Greek philosophers argued this out millennia ago. Except for the few radical skeptic believers, it has been widely accepted that there is a certain level of proof or sufficiency needed to be considered correct. That level may not be the same in all circumstances but it is there. 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.
The radical skeptic notion that the existence of axioms denies validity to any philosophical system has its own circularity that many of us have pointed out in one way or another. That circularity being the making of a statement of certainty (no one can prove anything) based on a philosophical system that denies the existence of certainty of fact. While it is a marginal system in the development of knowledge, its proponents have at least kept people working to improve the quality of knowledge throughout the ages.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Apr 11, 2011 15:11:32 GMT -4
Why should we listen to someone who we don't know for sure exists? I'm sure all your posts can be easily done by some sort of AI program.
|
|