On Friday, October 25, 2002, at 10:00 AM, Ted Molczan wrote: > The reason is that NASA has officially decided at last to commission a > detailed refutation of all the nonsense about 'Apollo Was A Hoax' on > TV, in books and magazines, and on the Internet. They have asked me to > write a 'monograph' which clearly and convincingly shows the flaws in > the hoaxist arguments. I'm doing research over the next few months. While I would like to see that information compiled, I don't think it will do any good toward refuting the "hoax" claimants. There couldn't possibly be any more evidence than there is already. The problem with the "hoax" arguments is methodological - they hinge on supporting a big conclusion from inconsequential bits of information while ignoring all the other information that doesn't match the thesis. There is no amount of new information that can refute an error in method. The only way to make the hoaxers go away is to show that their *method* is incorrect. If someone claims, for example, that there's no such place as France; that it is an elaborate hoax and everyone who claims to have been there is "in on it" - no new piece of evidence can refute the claim on its own terms. The only way to refute it is to point out that the original claim is arbitrary - there is no original piece of evidence that would lead one to make a claim that France (or Apollo) doesn't exist. There is no vacant sound stage, no film crew, no model makers, nothing. The original claim is based on whimsy, not evidence - that is why no new evidence will sway the "hoax" proponents. So long as you allow the original arbitrary premise to stand, no amount of logic can argue it away on its own terms. The general public is baffled because the average person does not have the familiarity with logic as a formal discipline to say explicitly what is wrong with these arguments. They sense that *something* is wrong with it. Common sense would indicate that such a large undertaking involving so many people couldn't be faked, but they can't name the mistake. Though it would be challenging, I hope someone presents the basic idea that logic doesn't allow arbitrary premises in one of these analyses intended for the general public. I think it would be more informative and satisfying in the long run than further evidence, and the "France" example has worked quite well with the man-on-the-street people I've presented it to. Regards, Steve Rogers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe from SeeSat-L by sending a message with 'unsubscribe' in the SUBJECT to SeeSat-L-request@lists.satellite.eu.org http://www.satellite.eu.org/seesat/seesatindex.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 13:42:30 EDT