Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Neil Armstrong's reply to a Moon landing skeptic

kottke.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 201 posts

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

#181

Post by hodgesrm »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #23
hodgesrm wrote: post #3

This is the sort of craziness that led to the Dark Ages after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. We humans are pretty much our own worst enemies.

I can't see the parallel between the willful ignorance displayed and the "Dark Ages." Do you think the migrating tribes just refused to believe those aqueducts existed?

I'm thinking of things like the destruction of the library of Alexander, the religious fanaticism of the late Empire, and the destructive effects of continuous wars from the mid-200s AD. It's pretty easy to wipe out scientific progress if you put your mind to it. It was not just invading Germans, though that certainly did not help.

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

#182

Post by hodgesrm »

sm4rk0 wrote: post #88
hodgesrm wrote: post #3

This is the sort of craziness that led to the Dark Ages after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. We humans are pretty much our own worst enemies.

I get your point, but actually this (volcanic eruption) led to the Dark Ages: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23565762 (another HN front page story)

No single event led to the Dark Ages. It was the result of centuries of economic and intellectual decay, combined with catastrophic invasions and wars. By 536 the Western Roman Empire was already some 60 years in its grave. (Though some argue about the actual end date.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_Augustulus

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

#183

Post by jwilber »

gameswithgo wrote: post #34
jwilber wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What it really comes down to is these people severely lack in critical thinking, so while it is surprising that they fail to account for other, seemingly obvious externalities, it really shouldn’t be.

This critical thinking critique is pretty tautological. In effect we are saying "these people with wrong ideas, the problem is they are not good at getting ideas right". But that isn't useful/actionable knowledge. WHY are they bad at getting ideas right? Is it innate to the average human biology? Is it something that has gotten worse as more people have gotten onto the internet where they are exposed to non-curated d…

True. I think the actual cause is definitely multi-faceted, and expect a big cause is education. Both quality of that received (eg state funding), and level attained.

Others have also mentioned other salient factors (psychology, etc)

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

#184

Post by api »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #53
tgv wrote: 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…

My pet theory on the flat Earth is that it's been pushed in order to compile lists of extremely gullible people by scraping social media so that these lists can be used later. For what? Who knows. Targets of scams, marketing, propaganda...

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

#185

Post by blaser-waffle »

lixtra wrote: post #105
iainmerrick wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that it’s the US government isn’t the important bit; Armstrong isn’t asking you to trust the government, and his entire argument is explicit, no reading between the lines required. What’s important is the “gigantic fraud involving 400,000 people” part -- clearly establishing that it would have had to be a pretty extreme effort. And rather than just saying “trust us”, he explicitly suggests asking people outs…

How many people work in the homeopathy industry? You can create that kind of group think were many do believe in what they are doing.

How many people are standing up and saying it's a scientific truth? How many actually-qualified scientists are backing it up?

No one outside of the people shilling those oils, and the fools buying them, think they're real.

The fact that you can point to it as an example implies that most people know it's hokum.

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

#186

Post by api »

hodgesrm wrote: post #182
sm4rk0 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get your point, but actually this (volcanic eruption) led to the Dark Ages: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23565762 (another HN front page story)

No single event led to the Dark Ages. It was the result of centuries of economic and intellectual decay, combined with catastrophic invasions and wars. By 536 the Western Roman Empire was already some 60 years in its grave. (Though some argue about the actual end date.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_Augustulus

If the Roman Empire had collapsed without the volcanic eruption, would it have led to anything as deep as the "dark ages" or just a political reshuffle?

France has been through like four governments in the past 200 years. The US is only 200 years old and has endured one civil war.

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

#187

Post by blaser-waffle »

api wrote: post #84
ceilingcorner wrote: post #16

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…

Apollo looks nothing at all like the WMD lie. There is more evidence available today that the Apollo landings happened than there was at the time, such as photos of the landing sites taken by later Lunar probes. Lies generally degrade over time, not strengthen, and the WMD lie has collapsed. Nobody believes the WMD lie any more. Even the Republicans are now admitting that. Many knew it was a lie back then. I remember…

> Now as for what that was... that's the real mystery as far as I'm concerned. A large number of America's political class of both parties believed invading Iraq was important enough to burn massive amounts of money, trust, and reputation. Why?

* 9/11 and the shock/bloodlust that stemmed from it * Powerful lobby groups, like the military-industrial complex and oil companies * the Saudis (local rivals, not fans of Saddam, and old friends of the Bush family) * the Israelis (also local rivals, not fans of Saddam, and capable exerting heavy influence on the W Bush administration) * Probably the Iranians (who bankrolled Ahmed Chalabi and his INC group, also not fans of Saddam)

None of this should be new or surprising -- the interests of most/all of these groups were known at the time.

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

#188

Post by koheripbal »

jwilber wrote: post #7
dreamcompiler wrote: post #5

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.

What it really comes down to is these people severely lack in critical thinking, so while it is surprising that they fail to account for other, seemingly obvious externalities, it really shouldn’t be.

The real issue is that they are disproportionately loud. Since they spend no time researching, they can spend all of their time being as loud and obnoxious as possible.

...and many of them make a living from the entertainment value of their conspiracy theories.

What compounds their out-sized impact is the attention the media pays to them. Every time they they are featured by some reporter, social media site, or local media channel, they receive a fresh new set of subscribers.

Rather than feeding these beasts, we need to learn to IGNORE idiocy.

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

#189

Post by hodgesrm »

api wrote: post #186
hodgesrm wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No single event led to the Dark Ages. It was the result of centuries of economic and intellectual decay, combined with catastrophic invasions and wars. By 536 the Western Roman Empire was already some 60 years in its grave. (Though some argue about the actual end date.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_Augustulus

If the Roman Empire had collapsed without the volcanic eruption, would it have led to anything as deep as the "dark ages" or just a political reshuffle? France has been through like four governments in the past 200 years. The US is only 200 years old and has endured one civil war.

You never know with history because it's not possible to conduct experiments. However, I'm very sceptical of arguments about the lasting effect of volcanic eruptions on world history during the last 2000 years. Known eruptions last 2-3 years, which is bad but of limited duration. [1]

Pandemics and disease in general have had far greater impact on humans. The Bubonic Plague epidemic of 1348-1350 wiped out at least 1/3 of the population of Europe according to reputable sources. [2] It affected medieval societies for decades by changing the cost and availability of labor. Destructive wars like the 30 Years War had effects of similar magnitude. (This relevant for the Roman Empire, which suffered continuous invasions starting from 406AD onwards in the West.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death

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

#190

Post by wintorez »

RealStickman_ wrote: post #162
wintorez wrote: post #59

I read it somewhere that the best way to respond to conspiracy theorist is to make a more outlandish claim: - Moon landing was fake. - You believe in the Moon?!

I believe in compromises. https://xkcd.com/690/

I believe in absurd. "You think New York is a real place?"
Post reply on HN