Re: Moon landing Hoax

["John S. Denker" <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

At 10:39 AM 2/21/01 -0700, Jim Green wrote:
> Hey, Folks, the FOX program did not assert that there were NO Moon
> landings, only that the first on had been fudged.

That statement is about as false as a statement can be.

1) Sometimes ye may judge a tree by its fruits.  The show caused many
people, including many of Ms. Reger's students, to question whether "we"
ever landed on the moon.  At the very (!) least, Fox presented something
outrageously open to misinterpretation.

2) I offer the title of the show,
  "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon"
as evidence that this was precisely their intent.

3) When all else fails, consider the facts:  The show featured allegations
about many flights, including ones with the lunar rover.  There was no
rover on the first flight.

4) If that fails, consider logic:  Several of the show's allegations cannot
be accepted without calling into question the whole project.  For instance,
either the landing site was dusty or it was not;  the show suggests it was
not.  One of the main purposes of the project was to study lunar
geology.  If NASA is lying about the dust, they might as well be lying
about everything.

5) The assertion that the Fox show was utterly unscientific rests on many
foundations, including the following two:
 -- They used a number of pathetically invalid arguments, having failed to
perform the most basic checks on their validity.
 -- They ignored a huge number of solid counterarguments.

==================================

General remarks:
 -- It is important to know when scientific arguments are being made, to
give them appropriate weight, and to respond to them with scientific
counterarguments.
 -- On the other side of the coin, it is also important for every citizen
to have a baloney detector.  That is, it is important to detect when an
argument is utterly unscientific, to give it much less weight than a
scientific argument, and to respond appropriately.

One contribution to an effective baloney detector is Sagan's principle that
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

A certain amount of evenhandedness is a virtue, but too much is harmful
(rather like dietary copper, as was recently discussed on this list).  We
should not make rash judgements, but it is our duty to exercise some
judgement.  We should not take an evenhanded position "between the fireman
and the fire".

Perhaps Hugh Haskell said it best when he quoted "we should all keep an
open mind, but not so open that our brains fall out."

======

Note:  The brains-fall-out quote is often attributed to James Olberg
(sometimes others).  The fireman quote is not original with me, but I have
been unable to ascertain the source.  Can anybody help with this?