We purport to be scientists here -- Let us act like it.
Exactly. There's a difference between EXPLAINING evidence, versus
EXPLAINING AWAY evidence. There's a difference between exposing errors,
verus "debunking" an opposing viewpoint. However...
I didn't see the FOX show, but I've followed the "moon hoax" controversy
on and off, and from what I can see of it, it does NOT resemble
parapsychology or cold fusion or UFO claims or any other current
controversy where there are good arguments made both by the supporters and
the detractors.
Instead, much of the pro-lunar-hoax evidence is based on ignorance of how
things behave in vacuum. Some of it is even based on ignorance of how
things behave in the everyday world! To say that the evidence is "stupid"
might sound like an attempt to smear the hoax-supporters and sway opinion
against them. But in fact, much of the evidence really *IS* stupid. It's
silly. It's full of glaring mistakes. It's easily explained (not
explained away by a debunker, but "explained", where you say "oh, of
course" once you hear the explanation.)
In my opinion, the evidence in favor of the hoax only works if you've
already made up your mind that the hoax is real. In that case each bit of
evidence supports your worldview, and there's no reason to look closely at
the evidence (finding flaws or counterevidence would harm your position,
and you don't want to do that.) If a piece of evidence is later shown to
be a mistake, well that doesn't alter your preexisting bias. If opponents
come up with good counterevidence, ignore them, since they're trying to
sway you with their propaganda.
On the other hand, an open minded person who hasn't accepted or rejected
the possibility of a conspiracy would see things differently. In that
case each bit of evidence tips the balance one way or another, and if any
piece of evidence turns out to be a mistake, then it's no longer in the
running, and the balance swings the other way.
In addition, mistaken evidence doesn't just vanish. Every time a piece of
evidence turns out to be a mistake, this in itself gives more and more
weight to the idea that those who supply the evidence are not interested
in learning the truth.