The Problems Of Evidence

[paigetheoracle]

Thinking about the conspiracy theories about the moon landings, made me wonder what you personally can rely on as proof? Scientists refuse to believe in UFOs and aliens because they don't have any of either sitting in front of them on a measurable global scale (Not universally available as bodies or craft to interact with, living or dead, active or inactive.

 

So can you believe and why should / do you, when the evidence can be disputed on the same basis? Moon rock - who can tell from looking at it that it isn't from a quarry up the road? Photos / film of the astronauts on the moon - how can you be sure that this wasn't all filmed in a studio? (I personally believe some of the photos definitely look too good, to have been produced anywhere else - all this loose dust on the moon, why doesn't it partially obscure the camera lenses and the astronauts visors?). Unless you fly to the moon yourself, you've got no 'personal' proof that this isn't a hoax ('Take nobody's word for it' is a common scientific quote in the UK). Water on Mars so pure you could drink it? I don't see any and haven't drunk any, so why should I not believe that this is just speculation, even if only well calculated (subjective as opposed to objective)?

 

You watch all these paranormal programs on TV and you think that was impressive but it could have been faked as you have not experienced what was seen yourself by the participants. 'How can you know anything for sure' is the starting point for all philosophy and the simple one that as scientists always needs examining because the real and the fake can sometimes be indestinguishable. This then leads to the question what is accepted as proof? That which is ubiquitous and has longevity of effect. For the world to accept something 'for sure' it must last and be visible to the majority of the population, not part and not for a short while. This then means that something ephemeral may well be dismissed, even if it was only visible for a short time and its return cannot be predicted (comets can be for instance) and / or it is composed of energy, appearing only locally. Hence the unknown being dismissed as unreliable evidence, even if it might exist and fall under these parameters (untrapped and possibly untrappable data).

Edited March 25, 2013 by paigetheoracle

[Rade]

Thinking about the conspiracy theories about the moon landings, made me wonder what you personally can rely on as proof?

I would say that proof is a process of deriving a CERTAIN conclusion based on evidence of the senses in a logical manner. Using this definition we can see why science has nothing at all to do with proof, because science is a process of deriving UNCERTAIN knowledge of reality using evidence of the senses in a logical manner. If you claim to have proof or certain knowledge of something, you cannot also claim that you came to this knowledge via the methods of science. If you look at definition of certain in Webster you see many places where it is defined as a state of being 'without doubt'. A scientist, by definition ALWAYS HAS DOUBT, no matter if the probability of the doubt is very very small.

 

Scientists refuse to believe in UFOs and aliens because ...

Yes' date=' a scientist refuses to believe anything, again, science is the process of gaining uncertain knowledge of reality, not belief about reality. To know and to believe are different concepts, thus differ in definition. From Webster are the following.

 

believe: an expectation, an opinion, an assumption, a judgement. A believe may or may not be based on rational thought (reason). Thus, when you derive expectations or opinions to explain problems, you use believe and the process may be based on reason and logical thought process, or not.

 

know: clear perception, firm mental grasp, understanding of, to recognize as distinct, to be aware. Knowledge requires use of reason. To say one has irrational knowledge of something is a contradictory use of terms, only believe has the possibility of being irrational. {added in edit: What Tolstoy calls irrational knowledge is an opinion thus it falls under the heading of irrational believe, which is clearly possible as defined above}.

 

To say that a scientist has uncertain knowledge is to say what is known, however clear and understood, is never absolute. This is from the Certainty Principle of Logic: to say knowledge of p is certain is to say p is absolute. Doubt implies uncertain knowledge due to absence of sufficient evidence of facts derived from the senses. Skepticism implies an unwillingness to believe unless such results in absolute certainty. The scientist rejects skepticism because they reject the possibility of absolute knowledge, but the scientist recognizes that doubt is always possible because absence of sufficient evidence of facts may exist.

 

So can you believe and why should/do you, when the evidence can be disputed on the same basis?

Good question to ask the Pope. Of course any human can believe and perhaps for good reason, but this type of thinking is outside science by definition.

 

Moon rock - who can tell from looking at it that it isn't from a quarry up the road?

Only someone who uses believe to reach such a firm conclusion. A scientist would test the chemical composition of both rocks' date=' and determine association with rocks from quarry based on uncertain knowledge derived from the test.

 

'How can you know anything for sure' is the starting point for all philosophy and the simple one that as scientists always needs examining because the real and the fake can sometimes be indistinguishable.

Yes, and it is only the scientist who answers that it is impossible to know anything for sure, that doubt is always present...again, this comes from a rational definition of science = UNCERTAIN knowledge of reality.

 

This then leads to the question what is accepted as proof?

Given above' date=' but here it is again....proof is a process of deriving a CERTAIN conclusion based on evidence of the senses in a logical manner.

 

...Hence the unknown being dismissed as unreliable evidence, even if it might exist and fall under these parameters (untrapped and possibly untrappable data).

For the scientist, the unknown is not unreliable evidence, it is no evidence at all because there is no mental understanding of fact(s) needed to say that one has uncertain knowledge. For example, if something is ephemeral and there are no fact of such provided as evidence to the senses of any human, it is by definition outside the methods of science to have knowledge of it. But, as soon as evidence is presented of the unknown it is the scientist that would be able to understand that the essence of the once unknown entity is factually ephemeral as compared to other entities more common.

 

Let me know what you agree with or not if you wish future dialog on the OP topic.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Rade

[Eclogite]

Rade has captured the weaknesses of the OP in his response. My comments largely repeat those observations from a different perspective.

 

Scientists don't believe anything, but they do accept things. They accept current explanations of observed phenomena made by colleagues because of the following:

 

1. They know from personal experience that scientific methodology provids an effectives means of discovering things about how the world works.

2. They can assess the reported work of others to see if it adheres appropriately to scientific methodolgy.

3. They can compare and contrast different arguments from others in the same light.

4. They know that, in principal, they could test any of the reported findings themselves using the methdology.

5. It would therefore be delingquent of them to withhold provisional acceptance of properly researched, peer reviewed, multiply validated findings.

 

And on the moon rocks: if was the the wholly unanticiapted composition of these that is one of the profoundest arguments in favour of the reality of the moon landings.

[CraigD]

(I personally believe some of the photos definitely look too good, to have been produced anywhere else - all this loose dust on the moon, why doesn't it partially obscure the camera lenses and the astronauts visors?).

Dust was a problem for camera lenses and visors on the Apollo Moon missions. Although camera lenses were be dusted using ordinary brushes, visors on later missions, where astronauts got dirtier and moved around more and longer, were more troublesome, because they were dusted off by gloved hands, which scratched them so severely that it became difficult to see well through them.

 

(sources: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/home/mitigating_dust.html, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/TM-2005-213610.pdf)

 

Photos / film of the astronauts on the moon - how can you be sure that this wasn't all filmed in a studio?

Personally, I’m sure that the people who claim to have walked on the moon were and are not lying because they seem trustworthy to me, and people who know them vouch that they are trustworthy seem trustworthy, too. The people who claim that these many people are all part of a lying conspiracy seem to me untrustworthy.

 

Other data that convinces me that the Apollo landers landed on the Moon and rovers drove on it as claimed is that these vehicles and their tracks appear in present day photographs, such as the especially spectacular one in this post.

 

Money, and law, is an important subject I’ve not seen mentioned in Apollo hoax conspiracy claims. The United States paid $25,400,000,000 (1973 dollars = about $132,800,000,000 in 2003 dollars) for the Apollo program. This financial information is public record, and extensively audited, so is almost certainly not false. An expensive SF movies of that era, such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, cost only about $11,000,000. So, if the program was a hoax, it was also a huge fraud, a theft from the US of tens of billions of dollars. As I mentioned above, Space scientists, engineers, astronauts, administrators, etc. impress me as fairly honest people. Like most such people, they also impress me as lacking the criminal hutzpah needed to risk being caught in – and go to prison for a long time for - a huge financial scam. Because there were are also a lot of people involved in the Apollo program, a lot – hundreds, at least – would have had to have been part of such a conspiracy. I don’t believe so many people could keep a secret.

 

I’m curious to know if any of the people who believe the Apollo program was a hoax have taken a “follow the money” approach to uncovering it. I’ve limited financial crime investigation experience (some technical IT work around medical insurance claims fraud), but imagine that tens of billions of stolen money would be fairly easy for a dedicated and capable investigator to follow. The failure to find this trail would, I think, be compelling evidence that no such crime occurred.

 

You watch all these paranormal programs on TV and you think that was impressive but it could have been faked as you have not experienced what was seen yourself by the participants.

What impresses me about paranormal television shows is that the makers of such shows are careful to avoid criminal fraud by selling their product as entertainment, rather than investigative services. These programs are commercially legitimate – Television networks like the Discovery Channel and SyFy purchase episodes of them for less than many of their other programs, and attract some of their greatest number of viewers, allowing them to profitably charge advertisers and broadcasters more.

 

Although not financially fraudulent, these shows disturb me, because they can give people with poor science educations inaccurate impression of science and the status of claims of the paranormal.

[JMJones0424]

Photos / film of the astronauts on the moon - how can you be sure that this wasn't all filmed in a studio?

 

Oddly enough, while we did have the technology to go to the moon in the late 60s, we didn't have the technology to fake the video. At the time, it wouldn't have been possible to fake the moon landing. Here's a filmmaker's take on the impossibility of faking the video with technology available at that time.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU&list=UUc_7Ma93pG8KTZOr_cw002w&index=14

[Eclogite]

I think this Mitchell and Webb videosays it all.

[paigetheoracle]

Mythbusters proved the evidence could be faked but could also be true and according to the program, the technology did exist at that time, through film makers like Speilberg, to fake the evidence. Eclogite gets nearer the point I'm making though that it is about belief. If the scientific attitude is acceptance, until proved wrong or right, that is closer to what I mean.

 

Those who talk about something being hoaxed, in my opinion are more anti-belief (biased against) than someone who takes the attitude that say a witness to some event is possibly mistaken in the identity of their experience (In Fortean circles they talk of simulcra or something that resembles something else but is not it in reality, which I think is a good way of looking at it).

 

Lazy thinking is making assumptions without enough evidence (easy answers). For instance I made the assumption that a pain in my toe could have been from kicking an industrial waste container over twenty years ago, resurfacing or an undiscovered sea urchin spine, from thirty years ago: It turned out to be an ingrowing toenail, which I clipped. Another incidence was blaming seeming incontinence on my age, when it turned out to be the loose, extra wide legged jeans I'd recently acquired. In other word vigorous and continuous investigation will eventually reveal the truth, if you keep picking at it (Think of The Challenger Disaster and Feynman's revelation, through using ice water and the seal of the booster rocket).

[JMJones0424]

Mythbusters proved the evidence could be faked but could also be true and according to the program, the technology did exist at that time, through film makers like Speilberg, to fake the evidence.

The irony is so clear that it's painful. You've either ignored or dismissed evidence I provided that the live Apollo video footage could not have been faked because you incorrectly remember an entertainment show that aired five years ago. I do not agree that Mythbusters is an appropriate source of evidence in this case, but since it is your source of choice, I decided to weigh that evidence.

 

Unfortunately, it appears that the Discovery Channel is pretty proactive in maintaining their copyright, so I was not able to easily find any transcripts or complete versions of Mythbusters Season 8 episode 104: NASA Moon Landing. If you don't have access to a free version of this episode, please pm me and I'll make it available to you. What follows is a selected overview of that episode. Everything in quotes is as exact a transcription as I was able to make on the fly.

 

1:53 "So pervasive is this myth [that the moon landings were faked] that 20% of Americans, today, still believe it."

3:23-7:30 [Photographic evidence - non-parallel shadows due to topography]

7:40-10:40 [Vacuum inconsistencies - waving flags and footprints intro]

11:05-14:45 [Photographic evidence - multiple light sources/fill light]

15:00-17:40 [Vacuum inconsistencies - waving flag intro again]

17:50-21:10 [frame rate manipulation of video intro]

18:31-18:57 Jaimie: "Specifically, what are the conspiracy guys saying?

Adam: Well, they're claiming that when you look at the footage of the Astronauts hopping around slowly in the moon's gravitational field, which is one sixth that of Earth, that that movement was acheived not by going to the moon, but by using a special camera which filmed the Astronauts at a higher speed than normal, so that when it was projected back at a normal frame rate, the Astronauts' movements were slowed down, imitating the way it would look on the moon.

19:15-21:10 [video replication through overcranking intro again]

21:20-24:00 [Vacuum inconsistencies - jagged regolith rather than water holds footprints]

24:50-28:15 [manipulation of video - recording jumping and running at 48 fps and playing back at 24 fps and through using a "gravity rig" - suspending Adam to simulate 1/6th gravity]

27:59-28:09 Jaimie: "Well, the slowed down frame rate doesn't match the NASA footage."

Adam: "No"

Jaimie: "The gravity rig, it's better, but I'd still have to say it doesn't nail it."

29:00-31:53 [Vacuum inconsistencies - waving flag and footprint busted]

32:00-36:10 [video replication in 1/6 gravity using "Zero G" parabolic flight aircraft from 1/6G to 2G]

35:22-35:38 Adam: "The movement felt totally natural, as soon as I started doing it. All the NASA footage makes sense to me now. The skipping they did is a totally efficient way to move in that gravitational pull. I couldn't think of a better confirmation for the NASA footage than trying this myself."

36:15-36:38 [recap, video footage faked busted]

37:42-42:18[Apollo 15 retro reflector vs. regolith test from Apache Point Observatory using 1GW laser]

42:19-43:03 [show end, all myths busted]

 

You'll notice that nowhere in this episode is the claim made nor tested that the technology was unavailable to record high speed footage and playback at regular speed as a live TV broadcast. Also notably, nowhere is Steven Spielberg or any other filmmaker mentioned. Spielberg's career began in 1969, so I would find it remarkably prescient of NASA to hire him specifically to fake the moon landings.

 

This thread, if nothing else, illustrates the fundamental failure in your premise. The "problem of evidence" is not in getting others to believe it. Instead, the "problem of evidence" is in getting others to give up their beliefs. You appear to me to have dismissed evidence without even trying to adequately confirm or refute it because of your beliefs. It is even more comical that your beliefs were based on an incorrect memory of a five year old entertainment program. In the face of true belief, of what use is evidence?

[Moontanman]

I can't help but be the devils advocate here... Does anyone else see the irony in this?

 

Personally, I’m sure that the people who claim to have walked on the moon were and are not lying because they seem trustworthy to me, and people who know them vouch that they are trustworthy seem trustworthy, too.