This is an unfortunate phenomenon that tends to happen - however the reason is we are all individuals with an interest in this stuff, so we all have an opinion when you question the foundation of the epistemology (that's 'how to know about knowing' right?) we try to practice.
I hear that. But what I meant was that it's just one of me and all of you. You all may be individuals, but you are a group, too, and it's hard to keep up with it because it's like playing tennis with eight people on the other side.
It seems you're annoyed this isn't just a place to talk about interesting stuff that can't necessarily be proved, but the point is this place is specifically focused on that dynamic - there are legitimate times and places to talk about those things, just less so here - although there is some room for more speculative off-topic stuff that comes up organically.
This is an excellent point. I'm not annoyed that it isn't a just a place for interesting stuff that can't be proved, but that it is hard to do it at all. I realized that I shouldn't have followed the tangent that led to the detour through the metabunking stuff, but once in it snowballed and took on a life of it's own.
Having a somewhat narrow focus on presenting and discussing verifiable evidence for the many claims about our universe that are out there is what makes this place, in my opinion, valuable and interesting. It's a discipline I appreciate. I can't understand you being so offended by it. However I do appreciate this conversation, as frustrating as it is, because it allows for some really good clarifications.
Hey, don't get me wrong. I'm not offended by anything. And I do understand the need for narrow focus. It's necessary. But it's not sufficient because without at least a loose grasp of the forest, the trees don't make as much sense. Both are needed and a balance has to be struck.
Just like it is with CT's and all the loopy stereotypes you guys have about them, all of which are true to some extent and false as well, there is the debunker stereotype as well, and it is well deserved. I just hate to see it dominate the signal to noise ratio because just as in CT land, the few sterling adherents of all that is wrong with the breed make it harder for more balanced approach that I'm looking for.
So after that first wave, I have plenty of data on who is who and what they are up to. Hey, I'm like the NSA, I guess.
Now I have a better sense of the players so it's easier to go from here. So, annoying as all that was for me and no doubt others as well, it's valuable so I'm glad it happened.
We enjoy looking into details, so don't be shy about taking a point you want to examine, and starting a thread on it.
That is the plan.
This particular one seems more pre-occupied with disagreeing on our particular sifting of bunk on ideological or philosophical grounds... if this is not so, please be more precise and exact in your criticisms so we can trace your discontent properly.
At the moment it just seems you're offended because people evaluate what people claim according to a very specific standard. You also seem to see a hypocrisy or double-standard, but it remains vague and ideological at this point to me rather than very specific and understandable.
Heh. Again with the offended. Please don't get me wrong, Pete. It's frustration, not offense. But, hey, you nailed it with the double standard. It
is ideological, which is my point. That's the source of my stuff about the labels.
In it's strict sense, debunking is more akin to fact-checking. Needed, certainly, but not the whole story. This is what I was seeking to point out with the stuff about Dawkins, and suck as that did, it was also very instructive and proved my point re ideology, as well as pointing out the shortcomings of the debunker approach, and both are tied together to form the core of the reason why it is so fucking hard to talk to you guys as a mob.
The ideology part is demonstrated clearly with the Dawkins thing because it points to the good guy/bad guy thing. I wasn't using my Dawkins examples as evidence against him. I was using them as evidence that there was a plentitude of examples of folks debunking them. It wasn't about debunking Dawk, but debunking the notion that he was somehow immune to being debunked or hadn't been. I was providing evidence that the claim was bunk, not that Dawkins was bunk.
Yet folks jumped straight over that point and started wailing on the quality of the debunking in the examples. They may have been totally correct in their assessment of such, but they still were totally off point as to the larger issue, which wasn't Dawkins. It's kind of sad to see a bunch of people congratulating themselves for stealing the ball and making a slam dunk--in the wrong basket.
This is the chief shortcoming of the approach many take to debunking. They don't seem to get it that there's more to things than never ending demands for evidence. But since that's the only tool they have, they hammer everything in sight with it. [And you know deep down that someone will respond to the last point with "where's your evidence?"
]
It didn't take long to see that the criticism of logic and rhetoric and the tools of the trade only flows one way--out.
Insiders have a "get out of fallacy jail free" card while outsiders are picked apart for every misstep. This is bad for two reasons. It fosters an unrealistic notion of the strength of your position and masks the flaws in your game.
Cruising through so many threads and seeing such shoddy slop being thrown around with abandon was disconcerting because nobody was pointing out any of it.
I've been apprised a number of times about CT fallacies and it makes my head hurt to see such stupid shit pass by unchecked. There's even a "tutorial" on the subject in the metabunk section entitled
Conspiracy theory logical fallacies, yet nobody pointed out the glaring problem with that or anything else in it. So, a pile of slop that is on the site as a tutorial goes by unexamined, but the one I tossed up as an example gets pummeled immediately.
Why? Because the one I put up was pointing out stuff about someone on the team while the other was aimed at the other team so it got a clear pass. Only problem is that my quick toss is already yesterday's news while the one unchecked is still seen as a tutorial.
Regardless, enough with this stuff as all this has knocked me off my agenda, so back to that.
And as to the moon mission questions, the most awesome resource and proof is in the collected archive of all the media produced by the apollo missions, found here...
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html
It really is incredible.
Thank you.