Slashdot Mirror
Should NASA Try To Refute Crackpots?
angkor writes "CNN has an interesting article on the dilemma faced by NASA: what is the proper way to deal with far-out theories given exposure (and legitimacy) by the media--ignore the crackpots or refute them?"
I say refute the crap out of them and get more press then the idiots making the wild claims.
Nasa needs to get more public support, the more chances to remind people how magical walking on the moon was the more likely we will be doing it again.
If you ask me the best way to refute it isn't to right a book, but to do it again. Would it really be that hard now that we have a space station to launch from.
You're probably not going to change the mind of someone who is CONVINCED the moon landing was a hoax. I don't see a need to spend money that could go toward research on trying to change people's minds.
Go away, or I will replace you with a very small shell script.
Outsource it!
NASA's core business is delivering science and engineering, not education.
There are plenty of educated, credible and vocal people who don't work for NASA who can and will provide necessary refutations (word??) for pseudoscientific nonsense.
NASA could probably achieve the same goal (convincing swinging skeptics) to the same level of efficiency through a PR department staffed with a couple of researchers and the occasional "read this or ask them" press release.
"If you create user accounts, by default, they will have an account type of Administrator with no password." KB Q293834
Is it my imagination, or are the people who believe the moon landings were faked often the same people who there's an aliens conspiracy in the Whitehouse?
Maybe it's just the the two groups are lumped together as crackpots. Either that, or it was the aliens who prevented the Apollo missions from succeeding.
People will believe what they want to believe. Evidence is ignored or twisted into something that helps their cause; human beings, for as long as the history books remember, have been leaping ahead into possibilities so minute, so improbable in order to feed a familiar sense of understanding; people wish and hope for what they'd rather know rather than what is, at times, oft eventually convincing themselves of something that may be untrue.
----- Wtcher Dragon, UDIC
Because these anti-science crackpots are trying to make it look as if NASA spent billions with nothing to show for it. They're trying to undermine the faith that society has in science.
I could draw parallels with creationism.
dave
It never ends with them, you can't please them.
You show them documents, they say they are fake.
Show them footage, they say it was done in a studio.
Show them the moon lander through a telescope, they say the telescope has been tampered with.
Take them to the moon and show them the lander in person, and they say it was planted.
Last time i posted this reply i got some replies suggesting that the crackpots be left on the moon.
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
One of Nasa's three stated mission objectives is "to inspire the next generation of explorers". Exactly how could the next generation be inspired if they think NASA was lying up-front about its most inspiring accomplishment?
No, this is to stop the crackpots from getting on the Art bell show and spread thier message like a plague.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
NASA got itself into this problem by presenting itself as a frontier organization, a group of heroic explorers. And to maintain that image, they are wasting lots of money on useless projects like the space shuttle and the space station.
What should NASA do? They should present themselves as a scientific organization and forego the wild-west mentality. They should stop presenting astronauts as "heroes", reduce manned space travel to next-to-nothing, and instead go mostly with comparatively low-cost, unmanned probes. As you may have noticed, people don't generally ask whether unmanned probes are fake or not, and even if they did, nobody would really care very much.
And, of course, the other problem is that the US population isn't exactly up to speed on science, on average. Refuting a single crackpot is too little too late, but NASA should take its educational role in the sciences more seriously and they should get the funding to do it--they are trying, but they aren't making a dent.
If we had a scientifically literate population, and NASA stuck to doing science and didn't create a heroic mysticism around manned exploration, crackpots wouldn't stand a chance. The way it is, NASA is merely reaping what they sowed.
If Dr. Sagan was around I'm sure he would point out that debunking crackpottery encourages critical thinking. That was pretty much the whole point of his book The Demon Haunted World, the idea that we are constantly bombarded by claims, arguments, and pitches. By taking on arguments logically rather than emotionally you can separate the legitmate claims from the pseudoscience. These sort of skills have wide relevance in our modern world. Every person that has ever been subjected to an infomercial, a verbal sales pitch, a car sales pitch, a print ad (or about a thousand other forms of persuasive speech) would benefit from logical, critical thinking. Additionally, you are much better at constructing valid arguments if you understand logic and reason, and aren't forced to make emotional appeals, ad hominem attacks, etc. to convince someone of your viewpoint.
Good point - I think that maybe there's a faction which says you can believe in Religion or in Science, but not both. It preys on devout people: says "thou shalt not believe in Science", as if Science was some mystical thing.
I wonder if there's a faction who'd like a populace which doesn't understand the word it lives in and reverts to superstition and prayer when a little thought would do. Then they can blame events on lack of faith, rather than a rational analysis.
dave
In arguments with people, I have a goal that I shoot for. I try to make sure that I've reached the point where: a) I am sure that my opponent has heard me and understood me; b) I am sure that I have heard and understood my opponent; c) I can state my opponent's views, and his or her reasons for holding them, in a manner that my opponent agrees is accurate; d) my opponent can state my views and their rationale in a manner that I agree is accurate.
Even with very intense religious or political discussions, it is usually possible to reach this goal.
And, for the most part, this goal is usually about as far as it is possible to go, at least in a single argument. After you get that far, you need to give it a rest for six months or so and not keep harping on it.
It is very unusual for anyone to say "By gosh! you're right! I just changed my mind." But if you can get a mutual understanding of each others' point of view, the chances of productive progress sometime in the future are much increased.
At work, say, with discussions with colleagues or supervisors, what typically happens (when I'm right and have presented it well) is that nobody agrees at the time, and nobody says that they've changed their mind, yet three or six months down the line I will see some partial or incremental progress in the directions I've advocated.
I believe that the same goal should be applied to the "moon-landing-hoax" debate. NASA should try to present clearly and publicly, the reasons why people believe the moon landing occurred, AND should try to address the opponents' arguments intelligently and respectfully.
NASA should not expect to convince the "it's-a-hoax" crowd nor to settle the debate, but NASA needs to acknowledge that the government has lied to us on occasion, and that saying, in effect, "it's true because we say so, and your opinions don't count because you're crackpots" is arrogant and inappropriate.
The Amazing Randi has not "settled" any debates about psychic phenomena, but he's done a lot of good.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
scientific method IS a faith - one has faith that scientific method will produce more accurate results than any other method. Scientific method demands that you show evidence to back up any conclusions and open your method for peer review - it's a system that I have faith in.
That was classic intercourse!
It is not about the crackpots. It is not even about moon landings. It is about teaching reasonable folks about critical thinking and evaluating evidence.
There are many people who believe what they see on Fox, because there are no easily accessible sources that give them the other side. These people also vote at elections, and one of their votes count as much as your vote (at least theoretically... :-) ). They shape policy as much as you do, and really, democracy can't work unless you have a well-educated public who can tell when they are being lied to.
That's why NASA, and every well-educated person has to spend time teaching everyone about evaluating evidence, not because of the moon landings, but because you can't have a working democracy without.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
The crackpots will always believe that they are correct, regardless of what the scientific community does. For example, the Air Force was constantly berated for not "explaining" the Roswell incident more completely. But when they did, all the crackpots said they were just covering it up with their explanations.
The "Moon Landing is a Hoax" crackpots are the same: if NASA doesn't refute them, then they can continue with their silliness. If NASA does refute them, then the crackpots either say "See, if NASA is refuting us, we are important" feeding into their delusions, regardless of the information NASA releases. It's a Catch-22.
Plus, any information that NASA does release would be used against them in some way: any little deviation, correction, etc, automatically triggers the "conspiracy sense" these idiots have.
It is a lot like the John Edwards stuff: you can explain exactly how he does his tricks, exactly how he gathers his information, but none of that will actually convince a person who believes.
Vincent J. Murphy
Spandex Justice
Channel surf around on cable or satellite these days and you are likely to find pseudo-scientific programs all over the place. "Scientists study the Bermuda Triangle" was one headline I remember. Even The Learning Channel dips into these low spots from time to time. And given the lack of scientific knowledge on the part of most Americans (or even a large segment of Slashdotters for that matter) there will always be a certain number of credulous people.
One of my co-workers was talking to his brother who mentioned that he had watched one of these no-moon-landings programs and now believes that there never was a moon landing. My co-worker responded, "The only people who believe that there was no moon-landing are the morons who believe the CIA killed Kennedy." A long silence ensued.
The mass media panders to people like this and most rebuttals would only reach those who were clueful anyway. My advice is to laugh at anyone who says that a moon landing never occured. And roll on the floor when you meet a flat-earther.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
They're trying to undermine the faith that society has in science.
That is a bizarre point of view for someone who appears to embrace science for its own sake. That comment, along with your creationism cut, appears to betray a regard for science that borders on religion.
My understanding of science is that faith is irrelevant. You ask a question, test the question, and analyze the results. I fail to understand how its purpose or value can be affected by public belief in it. Indeed, given DDT, PCBs, thalidomide, agent orange, phlogiston, the Hanford site, etc., etc., etc., I should rather hope that public policy toward science be critical enough to question it effectively. In fact, I am horrified by the thought of the public having "faith" in science.
The Soviets have come close (I couldn't find a link, but I've read a couple books and seen a few documentaries on their secret scrapped program). They did land unmanned probes, and they scrapped their largely unsuccessful manned program for the same reason we canceled the Apollo program before we launched all the planned missions: Once someone won the race (the U.S.) there wasn't much point in going back again and again for little day trips.
As for proof, that's easy. The Apollo program has left laser reflectors on the moon. These reflectors have been 'pinged' by many organizations independent from NASA and the U.S. government, including schools and government programs in the U.K., France, Japan, and even the former Soviet Union (what reason would they possibly have to back up false U.S. claims?), Canada and others.
Anyone with the money to rent a properly equipped telescope and the necessary laser equipment can verify this. Including the skeptics.
As for the point about the abductees, I've never heard anyone assert (even Whitley Striber) that they're talking about numbers in the millions. You and I both know that it's technologically possible. That's (I think) not what's in dispute here. But there is, in my opinion, as much reason to believe that man went to the moon as there is to believe that we've gone to Antarctica. I've never been there. And unlike the moon, I've never met anyone who's claimed to have been there! That doesn't mean I don't believe we've gone. It's not an absurd claim. Alien abduction... well, I think of it like an afterlife or lots of religious concepts. I'd *love* to believe in it. I've love to believe that not only are there aliens (which I believe do exist. We probably aren't the only intelligent life in the universe), but they are here visiting us. But I don't. I see no evidence, nor do I see any reason to believe it's more likely than not. Just like I'd love to think that after I did, that's not it. But I see no reason to believe that that is anything more than wishful thinking.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
If we had continued to explore the moon and established a base there and maybe moved on to the planets and the stars we wouldn't be having these debates would we? Going to the moon was (IMHO) man's greatest scientific and engineering achievement. We got there and just stopped. We had no vision for anything beyond meeting Kennedy's goal of sticking it to Soviet Russia before they stuck it to us. Literaly thousands of highly trained and dedicated engineers, scientists and techicians were given pink slips. The whole program was dismantled! We couldn't build a Saturn IV today if we tried! So is it any suprise that our collective memory of the achievement starts to fade into the realm of myth and legend?
While it is certainly more fun to make fun of crackpots than debunking them, (I do that myself all the time) a book schoolteachers could use might help new generations from falling for crackpots and pseudo-scientists. I amd for producing such a book.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Paul
You're assuming that the people arguing for the hoax are making logical, rational arguments. They aren't. That's why it's called "pseudoscience". They make outlandish claims and back it up with "prinicples" that sound good, but have no basis in scientific fact. It's the same thing that makes astrology popular.
Remember, most of these people won't be convinced until you bring each and every one of them to the moon, and even then some will insist it was a drug induced hallucination.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
Those who refuse to provide proof are the "anti-science crackpots". Society's faith will in science will be undermined if science as treated as something that must be believed based merely on a statement from a self-proclaimed authority.
You're painting with a pretty wide brush there, I must say. Some (many, I'd wager) people who doubt things like the moon landing are merely skeptical; it doesn't mean they're somehow opposed to science as a whole. Problem is, generally the only ones who get substantial airtime are the extremists. {sigh}
The world is a much bigger, more diverse place than Fox portrays. ;)
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
Because people who get "abducted" are all fruits. They have stupid stories about anal probing. The aliens always confirm these people's opinions (that conveniently are always ignored because of a conspiracy) about whatever ridiculous thing they're going on about. These people don't understand the difference between causality and correlation, they say things like "It didn't look like a plane [to me], I couldn't find out that it was a weather balloon, so it *must* have been a UFO" and they don't even understand why they're ridiculous.
That's why they don't get believed. They're not mentally all there and they make assumptions from too-few facts.
What does this mean? Because no other country tried (why, most of them were allies with one of the two countries that were trying), it must be false? No other country has made a plane like the SR-71, or nuclear submarines as capable as the US, but most people believe in those.
The space-race was a massive attempt by both sides to demoralize the other side by proving them to be less capable. Don't you think the Russians would have pointed out the US's lies if they could have? They've sent probes around the moon before. It'd be a simple matter to have sent out close enough to the landing site to photograph the empty site for proof that there never was anything there.
If you were in a contest with someone and suspected they won a big prize by cheating, and all you had to do to check was send someone to review tapes of part of the contest, wouldn't you do so? Wouldn't you blow the whistle? How about if the other person was your sworn enemy and you could humiliate them completely by this?
What is really so suspicious about the moon landings? The rocketry technology is there, I prove it every time I use a signal broadcast by a geo-synchronous satellite. The life-support equipment is there, this is actually easier than building a suit that'll work at great depths.
On one side of the UFO vs Moon Landing you have a bunch of trained scientists willing to show you the inbetween steps and the documentation, as well as explaining why certain things don't match your explanations and show how you can test these assumptions in an unbiased experiemnt. On the other hand, you'd got a bunch of crystal-power using, accupuncture practising, new-age weenies who make claims like UFO abduction or perpetual motion and yet get violent and abusive when you ask for a demonstration, let alone proof.
Who do you really think is more believable?
The flag flutters because of the "sun wind", i.e. light pressure. If americans would have better physic lessons, they would learn about it..
Wow, I hadn't heard anyone use that one before... Um, how much force does the light from the sun exert on a flag that small? Is the force relatively constant? Why isn't the dust on the moon blowing under this "sun wind"?
The light from the sun does have a measurable force, but it is very very small relative to everything else affecting things on the moon (isn't even strong enough to blow the moon dust around). The flag was waving in the breeze because the the vibration caused by sticking it in the ground had very little damping in the flag fabric without the presence of air. Only the miniscule friction cause within the material itself damped the flags movement so it "fluttered" at its resonant frequency.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
- The Americans had to show a success in getting to the moon, because they were locked in competition with the Russians.
- It is impossible to send men to the moon, because they would be killed by the radiation.
From this, two conclusions are inescapable:- The competition with the Russians was pointless, because the Russians could not have sent men to the moon either.
- The Russians were too stupid to know this, because they kept building the N-1 booster despite the knowledge that they could not put men on the moon. Yet they did.
Making such a conspiracy theorist look like a complete idiot in front of their friends and family is a good way to get them to shut up, and if they are afraid to talk about such nonsense for fear of a severe beating about the concepts with logic, the meme will stop spreading. The real problem is that most people are so ignorant that they have nothing to use as a template for calibration of their bullshit filter.Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist