A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon

[Gifter]

NLP? Neuro-linguistic programming? In that case, no, not a practitioner. Of course I'm not saying that the moon landing deniers aren't able to spell logical fallacy for example. I'm quite convinced though that they are not particularly good at avoiding them.

I'd gladly admit that some of my wording was a bit hyperbolic, I would think you wouldn't mind. You highlighted my description of Lawrence Krauss as brilliant, if you have an issue with that we have little basis for communication.



Like I said in my post, just felt the need to post something I feel is rational and true after watching 15 minutes of that last documentary. I just wanted to point out the difference in style for example.



I do not and have not felt any of this as a personal insult, I very rarely do. You needn't worry now or in the future.

I do get a bit passionate at times when talking about these things, but that's only because I'm quite passionate about truth, rationality and science. If I didn't feel passionate about it I probably wouldn't have cared about discussing it. I can assure you I mean nothing personal with it either. I do get annoyed at times when faced with what I describe as inane nonsense, but not to worry I'm capable of separating an opinion from a person.

I just highlighted the text in bits as it showed how you were glowing about those you align to and spitting bile at that which you do not, hence the NLP question.

I don't know anything about Krauss, it was just the manor of wording I was highlighting. I'll have a look at his work another night.

 

[Gifter]

i suppose. it does get annoying when ignorant fools treat these astronauts and space pioneers with that much disrespect. people like you are disgusting and should be thrown out with the trash

LOL you're a hoot.

 

[braineclipse]

14minutes into the first video you posted, (together with your wording) it appears that you are posting this as a means of attempting to advance your misguided notion that believers in alternative theories are in fact stupid.

Are you familiar with dialectic? Thesis - Anti-thesis - Synthesis. If you are, maybe you ought to take a moment to consider where the synthesis comes from, if people don't question the assumed knowledge of the day? Virtually all pioneers were/are margin walkers IMO, not pseudo intellectuals, revelling in the cosy comfort of the adoring crowd.

I have already said that I don't think conspiracy theorists are necessarily stupid and that although there might be some kind of correlation between intelligence and belief in these things I don't think it's a strong correlation.

Yes. Watch a bit of the second video, if you don't think Krauss walks the margins we're speaking different languages. The thing is though that people like him are capable of convincing other very highly educated experts in his field that he is right. It takes a long time, but it happens.

Nothing wrong with questioning the current status quo, but surely then you must accept that people will also argue against those that question it. I have no problem with questions, I identify myself as a skeptic, I just don't like irrationality. Not quite sure who you're calling pseudo intellectuals here, I'm guessing it's not Tyson, Krauss or Sagan?

This would end up as a very long discussion I feel, but I disagree completely with your definitions of who are the pioneers and who are the pseudo intellectuals. Let's just say that I would include your man the guy who made the "low earth orbit" mistake in the pseudo intellectual category while I include people like those I posted above in the pioneers. One common thing with those pioneers is their ability to say "I don't know". Could be an interesting discussion, but would be a long one so I'll leave it at this for now.

Edit : 17minutes in this guy is claiming moral impunity from the ethical outcomes of the applications they create. Hmmmm not having that at all. They came to this from talking about genetic experiments and the atom bomb... Now he's claiming radiated food is good for you WTF!

Einstein declared, “If I had known that this would happen, I'd have been a shoemaker instead!”

Sure, if you have no morals at all, you can have all the impunity you like.

He is saying that moral decisions around scientific discoveries shouldn't be up to the scientists, but based on public debate and opinion. Do you disagree?

Einstein was of course a scientist with a good moral code. Again, the decision to make and use the bomb wasn't made by scientists. It's worth mentioning that The US were not the only ones working on nuclear weapons at the time and although it's probably safe to say that neither Germany or Japan would have invented a nuclear bomb by the end of world war 2 it's quite likely that the Soviet union would have at some point after the war. I'm going to say that I'm delighted that the nation that was the first to invent it was The US, not any of the communist countries. Disagree if you want.

25minutes in - Pi now I can get behind that being very cool.

31minutes in - it was OK, bored with it now though, nothing learnt. Something of a science love in. If there is a WOW section let me know where it is and I'll give it a watch.

Well, at least thee was a very cool section if not a WOW section. Not bad. Yes, it is a bit of a science love in, one of the reasons I like it.

 

[braineclipse]

I just highlighted the text in bits as it showed how you were glowing about those you align to and spitting bile at that which you do not, hence the NLP question.

I don't know anything about Krauss, it was just the manor of wording I was highlighting. I'll have a look at his work another night.

Well of course I'm glowing about those I align to and spitting bile at those I dislike. The other way around certainly would have been strange.

To be clear I'm not spitting bile at anyone I don't align to, you're misrepresenting my views if that's what you mean. I'm spitting bile at the intellectually dishonest, irrational, lying, pseudo intellectual trumpers. I suppose I should perhaps differentiate between those that are exploiting gullible people to sell their books, videos and merchandise and those that just aren't aware of what they are doing, but it's quite difficult based just on a video. So when someone repeatedly and obviously misrepresent the truth or obviously make claims that can't be defended logically then I feel I have the right to spit some bile.

 

[braineclipse]

Excellent. Am watching the Krauss video

Cheers, I'm glad someone got something out of it.

That is the best video with Krauss in my opinion, some of his other stuff just goes over my head.

 

[braineclipse]

Are you familiar with dialectic? Thesis - Anti-thesis - Synthesis. If you are, maybe you ought to take a moment to consider where the synthesis comes from, if people don't question the assumed knowledge of the day? Virtually all pioneers were/are margin walkers IMO, not pseudo intellectuals, revelling in the cosy comfort of the adoring crowd.

A couple of questions based on this.

Would you agree that logical fallacies should be avoided?

Would you agree that arguments containing logical fallacies can be discarded?

Would you agree that individuals that frequently use logical fallacies in their arguments shouldn't be trusted?

Really quite interested to see what you think about this...

 

[Gifter]

I have already said that I don't think conspiracy theorists are necessarily stupid and that although there might be some kind of correlation between intelligence and belief in these things I don't think it's a strong correlation.

Yes. Watch a bit of the second video, if you don't think Krauss walks the margins we're speaking different languages. The thing is though that people like him are capable of convincing other very highly educated experts in his field that he is right. It takes a long time, but it happens.

Nothing wrong with questioning the current status quo, but surely then you must accept that people will also argue against those that question it. I have no problem with questions, I identify myself as a skeptic, I just don't like irrationality. Not quite sure who you're calling pseudo intellectuals here, I'm guessing it's not Tyson, Krauss or Sagan?

This would end up as a very long discussion I feel, but I disagree completely with your definitions of who are the pioneers and who are the pseudo intellectuals. Let's just say that I would include your man the guy who made the "low earth orbit" mistake in the pseudo intellectual category while I include people like those I posted above in the pioneers. One common thing with those pioneers is their ability to say "I don't know". Could be an interesting discussion, but would be a long one so I'll leave it at this for now.



He is saying that moral decisions around scientific discoveries shouldn't be up to the scientists, but based on public debate and opinion. Do you disagree?

Einstein was of course a scientist with a good moral code. Again, the decision to make and use the bomb wasn't made by scientists. It's worth mentioning that The US were not the only ones working on nuclear weapons at the time and although it's probably safe to say that neither Germany or Japan would have invented a nuclear bomb by the end of world war 2 it's quite likely that the Soviet union would have at some point after the war. I'm going to say that I'm delighted that the nation that was the first to invent it was The US, not any of the communist countries. Disagree if you want.



Well, at least thee was a very cool section if not a WOW section. Not bad. Yes, it is a bit of a science love in, one of the reasons I like it.

Dude, it is to late to reply to that in full, but I am not claiming for one moment that the documentary makers are intellectuals, they are just everyday Joe's IMO who found something odd.

In terms of moral ethics, to a degree of course it should be up to the public (and never the corporations who in fact control it via funding etc), but to use the excuse that a bomb maker didn't detonate it doesn't wash for me. The pioneers in fields such as weaponry, genetics etc have the scientific world at their feet (limitless funding etc), so they can (and should) say 'no I'm going to take my study in this direction'. There lies a great problem, if they do so the funding stops, point in case Tesla, the man who shaped the modern world more than any other (he was 1,000,000 times the mind Einstein was IMO), yet he tries to do something to help humanity profoundly and all his funding evaporates (J. P. Morgan famously saying 'if this energy is available freely where do we put the meter') and he becomes a fringe figure historically instead of the icon he should be. That is where real scientific ethics lie with me.

Take CERN for example, the higgs boson, it is rightly said IMO that the research they are doing could be the undoing of our earth, what if they collide the particals and find the answer, yet in 2 years time someone uses that technology to make a supermassive blackhole that ends mankind, is that risk worth it? for me it is proposterous to even fund such a thing when you look at how mankind has put scientific findings into practical application. If we keep doing the same thing over and over (ie the scientists saying well I didn't put my findings to use in that way) and expect different results, is that not a dictionary definition of (scientific) insanity?

Don't get me wrong, gazing into the universe and working things out is very interesting and quite deep, but, when this moves into the arena of tampering with the foundations of the universe you cannot claim moral exemption. Especially given mankinds history in where applications like this end up.

To say that you are glad the americans got the bomb first, after then dropping two on japan, is just to deep for a message board debate. Maybe the other side would have dropped more, who knows.

 

[Gifter]

A couple of questions based on this.

Would you agree that logical fallacies should be avoided?

Would you agree that arguments containing logical fallacies can be discarded?

Would you agree that individuals that frequently use logical fallacies in their arguments shouldn't be trusted?

Really quite interested to see what you think about this...

I think 'logical fallacy' sounds like pseudo intellectualism O

Logical Fallacies Avoided - Sometimes Yes, but in a debate topic such as 'did man land on the moon' I don't understand how you can apply this, there is not a scientific way to control variables or apply logic principles when talking about something which has no incontestable truth.

Logical Fallacies Discarded - of course not, do you believe that when mankind believed the earth to be flat there were not already established versions of logic principles which made the earth being round impossible, hence a logical fallacy. In basic mathematics of course, in theoretical physics no.

Trusting those who use Logical Fallacies - would depend on the situation. As above.

 

[southstand1882]

Cheers, I'm glad someone got something out of it.

That is the best video with Krauss in my opinion, some of his other stuff just goes over my head.

Absolutely brilliant video.

A must watch

 

[braineclipse]

I think 'logical fallacy' sounds like pseudo intellectualism O

I take it you haven't spent much time reading or learning about logical fallacies? Would you prefer 'logical errors' or 'logical flaws' or something like that?

You talk of dialectics, but you don't think logic is an important part of dialectics?

At least we have reached a fundamental point of disagreement...

Logical Fallacies Avoided - Sometimes Yes, but in a debate topic such as 'did man land on the moon' I don't understand how you can apply this, there is not a scientific way to control variables or apply logic principles when talking about something which has no incontestable truth.

I don't understand how you can't apply this.

You can't apply logic when talking about something which has no incontestable truth? Where does that leave you?

For questions where there are incontestable truths, what would be the reason for discussion or dialectics? If these were the only questions where you could apply logic how did you ever find those incontestable truths in the first place?

Logical Fallacies Discarded - of course not, do you believe that when mankind believed the earth to be flat there were not already established versions of logic principles which made the earth being round impossible, hence a logical fallacy. In basic mathematics of course, in theoretical physics no.

I can't see how there could be. In fact the arguments saying that the earth was flat would have had fallacies in them.

What do you look for in an argument if not logic?

Pigs have two eyes, I have two eyes, thus I'm a pig...

 

[Gifter]

I take it you haven't spent much time reading or learning about logical fallacies? Would you prefer 'logical errors' or 'logical flaws' or something like that?

You talk of dialectics, but you don't think logic is an important part of dialectics?

At least we have reached a fundamental point of disagreement...

Twas a joke, wrong smilie used I guess.

But you are right I've read little of logical fallacy. What I am putting to you is that 'logic' itself is an abstract concept, valid reasoning is dependant on the individual and the times.

I don't understand how you can't apply this.

You can't apply logic when talking about something which has no incontestable truth? Where does that leave you?

For questions where there are incontestable truths, what would be the reason for discussion or dialectics? If these were the only questions where you could apply logic how did you ever find those incontestable truths in the first place?

If you have a smaller set of variables you can apply logic easily, if you have masses and masses of data which can be interpreted in differing ways, then you can still apply logic but the bigger the set of data the less likely for assumed logic to be able to explain results for you, it changes to then theory, which means it becomes a theoretical debate where there is ever greater chance of assumed truth to be incorrect. I am not saying you can't apply it, just that it's likelyhood of being correct is ever decreasing.

This is why people see psychology as demi-science IMO, as in the human conditions there are just so many hidden variables which make the subject so difficult to apply logic to (beyond the simpler facets of course), I am saying you can apply logic to anything and in most cases it will be a good principle, but to try to apply logic to such subjects as covered in this thread is a folly as it is more about perception and feeling than hard science (as I see logically you should only have one shadow direction with one light source, your logic says it can differ for whatever reason).

I can't see how there could be. In fact the arguments saying that the earth was flat would have had fallacies in them.

What do you look for in an argument if not logic?

Pigs have two eyes, I have two eyes, thus I'm a pig...

As I said though, if you had applied logic (at that time) it would have stopped you seeing those fallacies if you had ingrained your beliefs to only seeing the earth being flat as a logical truth, it is then again about emotion, not logic. It them requires demonstration, which again the mind will not see if it already has believed otherwise in alot of circumstances (cognitive dissonance).

Example, a young scientist finds something which shows einsteins second law of thermodynamics to be incorrect, this finding is seemingly provable in a controlled scientific environment, do you think that Einstein would then see that logic? or a logical fallacy? If the finding was going to cause his whole lifes work to become questioned?

I'm just trying to say that both you and I, in this style of debate, are not going to be prone to seeing logic clearly anyway, as we have to many ingrained beliefs which are not easily changed.

You live on a pig farm, for the first few months you smell pig brick everywhere, after 6months you no longer smell the pig brick. Selective perception.

 

[braineclipse]

I don't think you understand what logic is.

There is a deeper philosophical debate about the foundations of logic, but this isn't it.

Einstein actually reportedly described his idea of a cosmological constant as "the biggest blunder of his life" when the evidence pointed towards him being wrong, now it turns out there probably is a cosmological constant. At a later stage in life Einstein was unwilling to accept what later became widely accepted as scientific facts. This doesn't mean the logic was flawed, you can only base logic on the information or data available to you at the time. It is a big and necessary part of analyzing the data.

The more complex, the more variables there are the more important it is that an argument is logical. You seem to be saying that for issues with many variables there are no truths. Again, what is the point of dialectics for those issues then? If an argument or statement contains logical fallacies then the only way it can be correct is if it's right for the wrong reasons, if it just happens to be right by chance. It doesn't matter what the statement is about, it can be about something simple or about something complex.

Logical arguments are based on premises, or data/information and if the premise is incorrect then the conclusion is probably wrong even if the logic is flawless. However, if the logic is flawed then it doesn't really matter what premises you have and if they are correct or not. This doesn't change with complexity.

I'm not sure what you mean by "assumed logic". Logic is based on evidence or premises, and from that it must be consistent, or without fallacies to be valid.

I agree that it is sometimes difficult to see logic clearly, that doesn't mean it can't be done or that one shouldn't try. At least not in my opinion, doing so is the same as admitting defeat or just accepting that nothing can be known on that topic. In fact this is one of the reasons why knowing about logical fallacies is so helpful, they are a way to identify those flaws in the logical chains to help separate truth from fiction. Especially in big, complex issues when the logical mistakes are tougher to spot, unlike my pig example in my previous post.

Here is a very good introduction to logical fallacies: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

I would say that anyone that cares at all if their beliefs are true or not should have a decent grasp of logic and logical fallacies. I will actually re-read that introduction myself some time soon, I can see that my knowledge isn't quite good enough.

------------------------------

An example:

The earth is flat, if it was round or rounded things on the underside would fall off and things on the sides would slide down.

There the fallacy is an unstated major premise. That premise being that gravitation works in one direction regardless of what location you are in.

 

[braineclipse]

One more (almost) quick thing, just because I don't want to seem like a dingdonghead.

When i say "I don't think you understand what logic is." I don't mean it as an insult or in any way derogatory. Until not that many years ago I myself didn't understand the basis of logic that well and knew nothing about logical fallacies. This despite having a decent interest in popular science, decent math skills and a fairly analytical mind. I also believed in some conspiracy theories, as well as having an interest in some eastern religions etc. As I learned about among other things logical fallacies, but also skepticism in general and some slightly different ways of thinking I changed my opinion on quite a few topics.

To be clear I in no way use this as an argument that I'm right, I realize that "I used to think like you" can be very condescending and I'm only describing the change in thinking I went through and some similarities I see with your views. I'm sure there are many differences also and I'm not trying to belittle you or your views.

What I found though was not only that I changed the way I thought about things and how I was thinking, but also that there was a lot of truth, beauty and wisdom in that kind of thinking. Things that aren't apparent unless you actually try that way of thinking. I found myself quite annoyed at one thing, why didn't anyone tell me about this sooner? I got annoyed with all the relativism that I had been fed and that had seeped into my head for so long that I hadn't been trained to think clearly. This is also why I sometimes get quite passionate about explaining my beliefs to others, that's what I wish someone had done for me earlier. I see the slight irony in that what I'm saying seems a bit like what religious preachers and missionaries say, I can only say that skepticism isn't a religion in any way shape or form.

 

[WookieD]

I don't know about landing in the moon, but you two have definitely disappeared up your own worm holes.