Live data from Hacker News

Neil Armstrong's reply to a Moon landing skeptic

kottke.org

71–80 of 201 posts

Re: Neil Armstrong's reply to a Moon landing skeptic

#71

While we laugh at skeptics, often they serve a valuable purpose. Skeptics have often revolutionized our understanding of the universe. Like Galileo. We should be careful of unquestioningly believing "established" facts.

This isn't being skeptical, this is straight denial. The useful aspect of a skeptical approach would be to not be convinced until a very high level of confidence in a result is shown. The skeptic would be saying 'hmm, the evidence is mounting up, but i'm still not convinced'. Having people like this about when decisions are being made can be very useful, as they can help avoid expensive mistakes.

Re: Neil Armstrong's reply to a Moon landing skeptic

#72

They would have you believe that the United States Government perpetrated a gigantic fraud on its citizenry. Well, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time that happened, by any government. The “Weapons of Mass Destruction” lie could be described using the exact same sentence, and that wasn’t even twenty years ago. Not defending the moon landing doubters, or conspiracy theorists in general, but: the proper response to…

> The “Weapons of Mass Destruction” lie could be described using the exact same sentence, and that wasn’t even twenty years ago.

Yes, and not even twenty years since it happened we know a lot of details. Compare that to Moon landing, where conspiracy theorists can at best switch to another accusation after they've got the first one explained.

> It’s to recognize their origins - a (often justified) loss of trust in institutions and governmental narratives - and work on addressing and fixing them.

People should maintain healthy distrust of institutions and governments - after all, as you say, it's not the first time when such mistrust was justified. Too much distrust is however a problem. Similarly one can hardly expect to solve all origins of conspiracy theorists - some people are just bored and want to believe in unicorns, and even if you'd create a more interesting life to them - a big "if" - they could choose to believe what they want.

History teaches that our understanding of history is lacking, sometimes sorely.

Re: Neil Armstrong's reply to a Moon landing skeptic

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really think lunar landing conspiracy theorists are going to "revolutionize our understanding of the universe"? There is room for subtly in these arguments, it is not an all or nothing proposition of listen to everyone, or listen to no one.

> Do you really think lunar landing conspiracy theorists are going to "revolutionize our understanding of the universe"? No. But just be aware that ideas people laughed at as clearly wrong and absurd have sometimes turned out to be the truth. Some examples: 1. heliocentric solar system 2. evolution 3. Titanic breaking in half on the surface 4. quantum mechanics 5. all men are created equal

Again, there are specific, identifiable evidence based reasons you should listen to those theories, and you can do so without equating every lunatic with a pet theory to the popular image of Galileo.

Re: Neil Armstrong's reply to a Moon landing skeptic

#74
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like flat earth and anti-vax? To me, it seems more obvious that that's the effect of attention and manipulation in media, both "classic" and social. A suspicious attitude institutions has always existed: from the government down to the grocer, who pushes the scales down while weighing. The more the attention is drawn towards it, the greater the suspicion gets, and I feel that especially divisive attention feeds suspi…

The Flat Earth thing makes no sense to me, but regarding Anti-Vax: again, not defending them, but it’s trivially easy to find examples of governments (worldwide) deceptively giving people medicine which had a negative effect on their health, whether as experimentation, sterilization, or otherwise. The fact that vaccines are scientifically known to be safe is just lost in the noise. I attribute the rise of conspiracy…

I mention flat earth and anti-vax, because they are conspiracy theories that are not obviously driven by the government's behavior.

Re: Neil Armstrong's reply to a Moon landing skeptic

#75

Didn't they come back with lunar soil samples? Armstrong reply was brilliant, but I would have also added: "here's some samples we took by ourselves, feel free to meet us at xyz lab and analyze them". And btw, who the heck allows a negationist like that one to teach children?

He did add that. Second to last paragraph.

Re: Neil Armstrong's reply to a Moon landing skeptic

#76

They would have you believe that the United States Government perpetrated a gigantic fraud on its citizenry. Well, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time that happened, by any government. The “Weapons of Mass Destruction” lie could be described using the exact same sentence, and that wasn’t even twenty years ago. Not defending the moon landing doubters, or conspiracy theorists in general, but: the proper response to…

> In the way that scepticism is sometimes applied to issues of public concern, there is a tendency to belittle, to condescend, to ignore the fact that, deluded or not, supporters of superstition and pseudoscience are human beings with real feelings, who, like the sceptics, are trying to figure out how the world works and what our role in it might be. Their motives are in many cases consonant with science. If their culture has not given them all the tools they need to pursue this great quest, let us temper our criticism with kindness. None of us comes fully equipped.

> And yet, the chief deficiency I see in the sceptical movement is in its polarization: Us v. Them - the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and if not, you're beyond redemption. This is unconstructive. It does not get the message across. It condemns the sceptics to permanent minority status; whereas, a compassionate approach that from the beginning acknowledges the human roots of pseudoscience and superstition might be much more widely accepted.

Selected quotes from The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan

Re: Neil Armstrong's reply to a Moon landing skeptic

#77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh and didn't the WMD fraud come out internally ? Tell me one NASA or JPL scientist officially on the mission who is claiming that it was fake ? Stop being contrarian for the sake of it .

As I said, I’m not defending the moon landing doubters. But it seems obvious to me that the recent increase in conspiracy theories is a direct result of unethical institutional and government actions coming to light.

I think conspiracy theories fill the same void as religion does. It’s for people who want to believe in a higher truth, that someone more powerful is constantly pulling the proverbial strings and the universe isn’t just a chaotic series of random events. And I believe, like religion, that those who love conspiracy theories are less interested in researching those facts themselves because they’ve come to rely on their assumptions for comfort and their peers for unity.

In short, it’s less about the actual conspiracy and more about the individual needing something more in life.

Re: Neil Armstrong's reply to a Moon landing skeptic

#78

Armstrong's exact argument about the vast numbers conspirators that would be required to keep perfect secrecy is exactly what I use when people try to claim that the coronavirus is some kind of hoax or that there's some kind of conspiracy about vaccines. Have you ever tried to get thousands of people to cooperate on anything, let alone perpetuate a massive lie, when they have nothing to gain personally from doing so?

Yeah, people have been selling an invisible product since thousands of years (religion), so it is quite possible to get billions of people to lie to themselves and to others.

Parent comment said nothing to gain from.

Pascal's wager (at least) would suggest some kind of logic to it

Re: Neil Armstrong's reply to a Moon landing skeptic

#79

What gets me most about these fools is they completely ignore how much such a huge fake job would cost. It would be so expensive that you could cut the budget in half and just...go to the moon.

Why would faking it with a soundstage and some actors in a room, and some small models, cost so much more? A big budget Hollywood film like James Bond Moonraker (1979) was 1/1000th the cost of the Apollo program, and with no famous actors/actresses, simpler script, TV quality, surely a fake would be cheaper than that? If someone thought it was fake, they ought to be asking where the budget really went and whose pocke…

I remember reading an article years ago, saying that it’d have required the invention of electronics that did not exist yet to slow down the footage (simulating 1/6th g) and pull off a live broadcast that lasted hours and hours. So in essence, it’d have been the more impressive thing to do technologically speaking. Having seen the new 1 hour documentary on Apollo 11 and how rickety everything looked and barely worked, I’d agree with that assessment.

Re: Neil Armstrong's reply to a Moon landing skeptic

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The WMD claim had plenty of holes poked through it even at the time . There were constant stories making it clear the inspectors in Iraq were not finding anything, and whistle blowers like Valerie Plame who directly contradicted the White House claims. Today, less than twenty years later, it's no longer a question that there weren't any WMDs. The fraud Armstrong is pointing out isn't really comparable.

It’s a single example. The list of governmental frauds is as long as recorded history.

Sure, but in a democracy it’s very difficult to defraud the public, because the government employees doing the defrauding are the public. At any given time, large swathes of those employees are politically opposed to whoever is in power. That’s why the WMD fiasco is so instructional. It failed immediately, for precisely the reasons we would expect any such fraud against the population to fail, and for precisely the reasons we would expect faked moon landings to be rapidly exposed.
Post reply on HN