|
Post by drewid on Apr 11, 2011 17:11:10 GMT -4
Aww, I don't wanna go back in the bomb bay.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Apr 11, 2011 19:00:27 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. Indeed. And that's especially relevant here if you want your claim to be anything more than trivial solipsism. For if one could correctly show that Apollo had to violate an established physical law to do what it was claimed to do, that would be a very powerful argument that the program was faked -- the huge amount of evidence for the program (and the complete lack of any positive evidence for a hoax) notwithstanding. And the HBers certainly do try this tack, usually by citing some sort of impenetrable radiation barrier. But they always fail. In part that's because their understanding of the laws of physics is practically nonexistent. But the real reason is that Apollo, as documented, was completely consistent with established physical laws. There's simply no reason to believe that it wasn't real. And I say this a lot. I'm an engineer, and I've studied many Apollo engineering documents. I see why Jay says they're often used as source material in aerospace engineering courses; I've certainly learned a lot from them. But I've never seen anything that obviously couldn't have worked as advertised. I might not understand something right away, but unlike one person I know over on Youtube I don't immediately jump to the conclusion that it doesn't make sense because it didn't work (and the writers were trying to lay clues...) Instead I proceed on the simple assumption that it might eventually make sense if I work at it. I think this is what really ensnares a lot of the HBs. The idea of sending men to the moon -- with 1960s technology and managed by the unremittingly evil US government -- seems so utterly outlandish that it just couldn't have been possible. And if it was impossible, then no matter how real it seemed, it must have been a fraud! They have no interest -- none -- in actually learning how it was done. This is truly sad because I believe that simply making an honest effort would convince most doubters that it was possible -- even if they don't succeed in actually understanding the technical details. They'd rather just jump to their preferred conclusion. It's really just a form of laziness, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Apr 11, 2011 20:52:09 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. Science is an advancing process and a practical way of dealing with the world in the way, that it unifies theory and experiment. The basic tool subject - mathematics - rests on axioms, and those axioms cannot be proven within mathematics itself, but that is not a problem to science as long as mathematics actually works as an explanatory tool for the science, it is applied to, because the ultimate criterion for the reliability of a theory is the test. So if a scientific explanation is "correct" or not, depends on the degree to which it solves the practical problem, it arose from - imho. ETA: Alas I fell into the very trap, I intended to describe, and it disturbed my sleep, so I'm back at the keyboard with limited English and rusty theory of science :-) First: "Reliability" is a methodological term. I should rather have used the term "veracity" (?). Second: Science does not deal with verifying theories. Science deals with not being able to falsify theories. So what makes a theory "correct" is the inability to establish a better theory, although concurrent theories may exist alongside for a period of time. In the case of the OP's claim of "possibilities" we don't need to deal with them at all, because as long as they are not supported with evidence, they don't pose any threat to the reigning theory. A lot of events might well be shown to be possible, but these possibilities are still not relevant at all to the reigning theory, as what matters is, if there is evidence supporting the hypothesis that these "possible" - i.e. hypothetical - events actually took place. So "This is possible - prove me wrong" is probably impossible, but first of all it is completely irrelevant and doesn't have to be considered at all. In the case of the moon rocks, there is a very detailed theory explaining where they came from and how they got here. There is no evidence whatsoever supporting any other theory. The role of science is not to "prove", that the reigning theory is correct with any "certainty" but rather to evaluate any attempts to falsify the theory. So when this process has gone on long enough and the probability has reached a level, which is generally accepted as adequate for any practical purpose, we call that "certainty" - well aware, that the term is relative. So men have walked on the Moon and they brought rocks back to earth - most certainly! Good night - or rather good morning :-) - and my apologies to anybody who feels that I have repeated what they already wrote.
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Apr 12, 2011 5:44:38 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. You really didn't prove anything at all.
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Apr 12, 2011 5:46:26 GMT -4
The fact that most people disagree is why innocent people are tried and sentenced to death when they were in fact innocent.
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Apr 12, 2011 5:47:54 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. you mean it's possible i am right
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Apr 12, 2011 5:49:15 GMT -4
Something is possible if you can't disprove it. 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.
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Apr 12, 2011 5:52:24 GMT -4
Something is possible if you can't disprove it. 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. But you have to know that when you say something is probable, well, that is a value judgment, thus it doesn't really have any "scientific" value at all. This is why being atheist is not being "scientific".
|
|
|
Post by carpediem on Apr 12, 2011 5:55:23 GMT -4
www.politicalforum.com/conspiracy-theories/140978-ufos.htmlUFOs do exist, and some may be of extra-terrestrial origin. I think it's now beyond doubt that they exist. The U.S. government may always come up with some shoddy explanations to hide this fact from the public. Although in some cases those explanations may have been true, many are ludicrous beyond belief. This belief of mine was reinforced by the fact that certain scientists of certain governments take them seriously as matter for scientific investigation, and some even witnessed them. Obviously, not all governments are as keen as the United States on strangling all reported public sightings of UFOs. Also, claiming that they are part of a public conspiracy is simply stupid. Obviously, some footages are fake, but it must be reminded that they are a very widespread phenomenon. As I've asked before do you think there is more evidence for UFOs than Apollo - do more scientists take Apollo seriously than UFOs?
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Apr 12, 2011 5:57:21 GMT -4
Well, of course, UFOs exist. Whenever you can't identify something in the air, well, that's an UFO. LOL
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Apr 12, 2011 5:59:01 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by carpediem on Apr 12, 2011 6:05:38 GMT -4
Well, of course, UFOs exist. Whenever you can't identify something in the air, well, that's an UFO. LOL Do more scientists take Apollo seriously than UFOs?
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Apr 12, 2011 6:08:56 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by carpediem on Apr 12, 2011 6:09:47 GMT -4
Well, of course, UFOs exist. Whenever you can't identify something in the air, well, that's an UFO. LOL So you were just wasting the time of the people on the political forum, the same as you are here. Are you retarded?
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Apr 12, 2011 6:14:36 GMT -4
Well, of course, UFOs exist. Whenever you can't identify something in the air, well, that's an UFO. LOL So you were just wasting the time of the people on the political forum, the same as you are here. Are you retarded? I don't really want to know how your brain works, but I would like to know how you came to that conclusion.
|
|