|
Post by margamatix on Jul 27, 2005 8:02:30 GMT -4
I've just been looking at the BBC science website (the BBC is the state broadcaster here in the UK and is generally considered reliable). The url is www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/solarsystem/earth/moonvote.shtmlThe site discusses both sides of the hoax theory (although it should be noted that the BBC's position is the standard version- that we did land on the moon. The result (so far) of a poll which asked the question "Did we really land on the moon" is Yes (11,363 votes) 59.0% No (7884 votes) 41.0% There is some fascinating video footage of Neil Armstrong appearing on the BBC TV programme "The Sky At Night". (Centre of page, beneath "the experts", click "watch interview") Watch how he only gets seven words into the sentence before he realises his error and corrects himself. Watch Patrick Moore's response- the four words "because you've been there" make it obvious that he doesn't believe a word of it but is prepared to go along with it like everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jul 27, 2005 8:14:14 GMT -4
So you feel that a poll conducted online where people can vote more than once is scientific and in any way accurate?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 27, 2005 9:19:49 GMT -4
And why should the 41% be believed more than the 59%.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 27, 2005 9:24:24 GMT -4
Instead of changing subjects, why don’t you answer the questions placed to you in the other threads you started?. The number of threads you start matters about as much as the results of a poll or the number of astronauts that swear on a Bible in the truth of Apollo. That is to say not at all. Changing subjects a typical tactic for people that don’t know their subject so can’t really support their proposition but refuse to learn or acknowledge their errors.
Stick to a topic and support your propositions if you want to be taken seriously, otherwise don’t be surprised if others find you less than credible.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 27, 2005 9:25:27 GMT -4
I accept it's not a very scientific method of extracting public opinion, but it still seems a very high proportion of sceptics to me.I voted No, but then I never believed Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction either despite all the evidence that they did.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 27, 2005 9:30:22 GMT -4
Stick to a topic and support your propositions if you want to be taken seriously, otherwise don’t be surprised if others find you less than credible. There sems little point in simply saying the same thing over and over. For example, if someone refuses to believe that an astronaut is suspended on a wire when he quite clearly is, and such is obvious to anyone, then you may as well accept that he has closed his mind to your argument and move on.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 27, 2005 9:42:22 GMT -4
For example, if someone refuses to believe that an astronaut is suspended on a wire when he quite clearly is, and such is obvious to anyone, then you may as well accept that he has closed his mind to your argument and move on. You can think of only one possible explanation for what you see so you stubbornly refuse to consider any other explanation and you reject every opinion that does not agree with yours. That it is the definition of close-minded.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 27, 2005 10:30:21 GMT -4
Non-scientific polls do not reflect reality. End of story. The scientifically-controlled polls put the figure at somewhere around 94% to 6% in favor of Apollo's authenticity.
For example, if someone refuses to believe that an astronaut is suspended on a wire when he quite clearly is
I see no wire, and you have declined to show it to us.
...and such is obvious to anyone
Begging the question yet again.
You inferred the presence of the wire from the astronaut's motion. Another explanation was given for the astronaut's motion, but you refused to examine the evidence of that other explanation.
...then you may as well accept that he has closed his mind to your argument and move on.
But you have provided no argument; only a claim. You say it's "clear" and that it's "obvious". That's not an argument. When pressed you imply that you have inferred the presence of the wire from the astronaut's movement. That makes it unclear and not obvious.
Please endeavor to understand the difference between a claim and an argument or proof.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 27, 2005 10:35:05 GMT -4
There sems little point in simply saying the same thing over and over. Correct. That's why simple repetition of your claims does not advance your arguments, especially in the face of multiple detailed explanations by other posters.
For example, if someone refuses to believe that an astronaut is suspended on a wire when he quite clearly is, and such is obvious to anyone, then you may as well accept that he has closed his mind to your argument and move on.
No. A number of posters provided you sources of high-quality imagery with plenty of context, not the deliberately crappy and selected snippets used by those trying to make a buck out of the hoax story. They gave you detailed explanations about why the "wire" claim was at the very best completely unnecessary. But all you've done is cling to your original assertion that you saw a wire, and you haven't bothered to look any further than your hoax snippet. Meanwhile, other people are doing your work for you - looking at the hoax snippets, digging up the time referencs, providing you sources, and examining the high-quality imagery - to show you the truth, but you won't look.
You call those people close-minded?
And you would have us believe you've extensively researched the Apollo record?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 27, 2005 10:38:31 GMT -4
Speaking of polls determining objective truth - margamatix, I'm pretty sure that you dislike the current U.S. administration. Did you know that very recently, accurate polls showed that something like 3/4 of the people who voted for Mr. Bush still believed that Iraq had WMDs, and that Saddam Hussein was connected with the 9/11/2001 attacks?
So much for polls being a guide to reality.
|
|
|
Post by gdwarf on Jul 27, 2005 13:11:39 GMT -4
I fail to see how these polls serve any purpose at all. If I walk into a grade one class and poll them about the speed of light, what they say makes no difference, heck, I could get the opinion of everyone on the world that the world is, in fact, flat, but that does not make it so. Society does not control the truth, sincerity does not control the truth, facts show you what the truth is. That is something that all HBs seem to forget.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 27, 2005 13:20:58 GMT -4
It's legitimate to poll people in order to discover their beliefs and preferences. But in order to generalize that result to a larger population from which the sample is drawn, statistical controls must be put into place. These are never done for Internet straw polls.
It is not legitimate to poll people in order to attempt to answer an objectively verifiable question. A poll that says penicillin is made from sunshine and farts does not change the scientific facts regarding the origin of the drug. Similarly a scientifically controlled poll still cannot establish the authenticity of a historical event -- only whether there is belief in such authenticity. It may be helpful to know how many people believe that an alleged historical event actually took place, but it doesn't alter the facts.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jul 27, 2005 13:44:43 GMT -4
It's legitimate to poll people in order to discover their beliefs and preferences. But in order to generalize that result to a larger population from which the sample is drawn, statistical controls must be put into place. These are never done for Internet straw polls. It is not legitimate to poll people in order to attempt to answer an objectively verifiable question. A poll that says penicillin is made from sunshine and farts does not change the scientific facts regarding the origin of the drug. Similarly a scientifically controlled poll still cannot establish the authenticity of a historical event -- only whether there is belief in such authenticity. It may be helpful to know how many people believe that an alleged historical event actually took place, but it doesn't alter the facts. You mean penicillin isn't made from sunshine and farts?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 27, 2005 15:28:50 GMT -4
Speaking of polls determining objective truth - margamatix, I'm pretty sure that you dislike the current U.S. administration. . No, not at all. Although I did not for one minute believe that Iraq had WMD and opposed my own country's involvement there, believing it would lead to attacks on the UK, I do not live in the USA and so do not wish to venture an opinion on their administration. Time will tell whether Mr Bush was a decent and honest president, or a thoroughly dishonest and fraudulent trickster like, for example, Richard Nixon.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 27, 2005 15:41:19 GMT -4
You'll find that some people here support the U.S. administration and others do not.
This is a bit of a tangent, but a lot of our critics simply accuse of being blind, Bush-loving fanatics. I'm pleased to report I did not vote for Bush. Not that it matters, but that's my point. We have both Republicans and Democrats here. On the old version of the board we used to have rollicking debates between ourselves on public policy matters. But it's worth mentioning that we certainly don't believe in Apollo because we have some sort of unified political vision that demands it. We believe in Apollo's authenticity because that's where the facts point.
That aside, let's get back to the poll. Do you really believe this poll that you've cited is evidence of anything?
|
|