Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?

[Romulus]

Having been involved in scientific debates nearly my entire life, I have over the years never seen a scientific achievement verified and accepted as science fact quite like the N.A.S.A.'s manned exploration of the moon in the last century. On boards like this one dedicated to "debunking" the contention that the Apollo missions were in some part a hoax, the rules and roles of skeptic and claimant appear to the causal observer to have been reversed. No longer is it the claimant of the accomplishment in science that is required to defend his position and provide proof, it is those critical of it tasked with the impossible chore of proving a negative. this sounds strikingly similar to the attitude of a religious faith and it it's proponents. Unless you can prove it to them that it is not true, to them it remains fact.  Scientists often say we can't test the existence of God, because  it isn't possible to falsify the existence of prime creator. They say the existence of a creator is based on faith because it is not falsifiable.

My question to the main participants here like Jay Windley and Phillip Plait, who have displayed a high degree of competency in defending the official position and have been instrumental in NASA public relations is this:

HOW ARE THE APOLLO MANNED MOONLANDINGS FALSIFIABLE USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF INQUIRY ? What proof would you accept and at what point does an overwhelming preponderance of evidence begin to make you doubt you methods and attitude towards what is supposedly a scientific achievement? Aren't you reversing roles? If the critics say Apollo doesn't seen like a credible sceintific achievement because it cannot be independently duplicated or confirmed and all of the evidence comes from the claimant alone, isn't it true that according to the scientific method Apollo is an unproved claim?

There is reason I am pointing this out, and I will reveal it to you the reader  here on this forum dedicated to defending the N.A.S.A. narrative of the Apollo mission. You are here supposedly defending what you claim to be a scientific achievement, and you are claiming to use science to do it, yet you seem to be totally disrespecting the rules of how science has worked for centuries.

It is my contention and feel free to correct me if I am wrong that the bandwagon fallacy is being used and grossly overplayed. You're essentially saying "because the vast majority of scientists do not question the validity of NASA's claims, it is up to you to prove the missions were a hoax".

I know how skillful you are in defending you positions and debunking evidence here on this forum and on others around the internet. How do you defend your reversal of roles in the sceintific process, taxing your opposition with proving a negative and  claiming debunker status while defending a scientific achievement ?

This is not how real science works, it never has been, and it in my opinion is a "rigged game" that is impossible for the skeptic to win because you have somehow convinced people the in this one case, the rules of scientific inquiry have been reversed. Here we have what is without a doubt the very pinnacle of human scientific achievement that is claimed to have been made nearly a half century ago, and not only is it still to this day an unreproducible experiment, even NASA admits it won't be possible for at least a few decades from now to do so. My position is simple. You are making a spectacular claim that you cannot prove using the evidence you have because it can all be explained without your underlying claim being true. There are also many questions about this evidence that cast serious doubt on its authenticity that it is your position it is up to us to prove, as demonstrated by your rules of debate here.

No scientific debate is conducted in this manner, which leads me to conclude that you are not really scientists at all, but some form of propagandists or public relations personnel that have sceintific backgrounds.

I am not making ANY claim here other than you are not respecting the scientific method. How do you defend that accusation?

[Romulus]

On a post here made by Jay Utah (Jay Windley I presume), he made the claim that experiments involving parallax that appear to prove the NASA surface photography used projection screens could not be duplicated and therefor was proof of nothing. That was not entirely true, others can attempt to do the same thing and confirm it. But isn't Jay admitting Apollo cannot be proved unless it can be independently duplicated? (another question!)

I understand your motivation to defend your position here, and I am aware of the resources you have at your disposal to do so, but it is my personal opinion that you avoid having to disprove evidence by making the claim that the skeptic must do what you clearly cannot, and that is prove your claims.

[Bob B.]

The scientific method doesn't apply to the study of history.

[JayUtah]

On a post here made by Jay Utah (Jay Windley I presume),

Which post?

But isn't Jay admitting Apollo cannot be proved unless it can be independently duplicated? (another question!)

Of course I'm not admitting that.

...and I am aware of the resources you have at your disposal to do so...

Such as?

...but it is my personal opinion that you avoid having to disprove evidence by making the claim that the skeptic must do what you clearly cannot, and that is prove your claims.

Nice try at shifting the burden of proof.

The hoax claimants spend nearly all their time trying to undercut or erode faith in the evidence already on the table in favor of Apollo's authenticity.  The mountain of evidence.

Your "bandwagon" argument fails as a straw man.  You say that the vast majority of scientists and other people who know what they're talking about "don't question" Apollo, but that's a clever misstatement.  It's more accurate to say they are expertly familiar enough with the evidence in the record and the principles of the sciences that contribute to it to have formed an educated, rational conclusion whether it's more likely to be real or whether this vast horde of largely ignorant naysayers has a point.  Do you really think that when the arguments are as patently stupid as looking for stars in photos, that well-informed people pay it any heed?

Generations of applicable experts agree after rigorous study that the evidence is voluminus, correct, and convincing.  Spin it all you want, but the people who know what they're talking about all agree -- because they know what they're talking about.

[Romulus]

The scientific method doesn't apply to the study of history.

I am not studying history nor do I have any intentions of entering into this debate under the pretense that I am. This is strictly a scientific inquiry with the purpose of exposing a dishonest tactic being used to suppress it. You have what I call blind faith and protect your beliefs in the same manner as a religious nut.  Most of us realize history is little more than an agreed upon lie by those who write it. Like religion, their are many versions of history, it is not the same sort of empirical based discipline that science is. Science deals with what can be proved and history is often little more than a majority opinion.  History and science are water and oil, and trying to claim a scientific achievement is proved because it is "historically accurate" is not a valid argument.

I maintain that Apollo has not been proved as scientific achievement according to the scientific method and that it is not up to the critics of that claim to prove their positions, it is up to the claimant. And you know what? EVery real scientist in the world that is actually competent and honest will tell you exactly the same thing. It is true that most scientists do not question NASA's narrative of events , and I believe there are several reasons that adequately explain that fact. Number one is motivation. Where is the motivation for becoming an outcast and painted a nut by persons like Jay Windley who are skilled at doing this? I Suppose you could write a book and make a moderate profit, but wouldn't your career pretty much be shot?  Another obvious explanation is they are simply disinterested in the subject. Most scientists don't really care because they don't understand the sociological impact is so important. Their minds are occupied with their job tasks. With the few who might be motivated , there is the effect this would have on their careers, which would be negative.

[JayUtah]

The scientific method doesn't apply to the study of history.

Which is to say a different epistemology describes the burden of proof in historical research, specifically where accusations of fraud or fakery are leveled.  If a purported occurrence is plausible enough in its setting and has broad acceptance among the relevant scholars, a charge of fabrication specifically incurs the burden of proof.

Historians are very clear on this.  If you argue some historical event was faked or staged, you always have the burden of proof.

[gillianren]

What would disprove Apollo?  How about an alternate explanation for the evidence?  And that's all the evidence, not a cherry-picked data point or three.  When the rockets were launched, where did they go?  How were the radio transmissions faked?  The viewings from Earth?  The photos?  The film?  The TV transmissions?  The rocks?  The core samples?  There are literally tons of evidence, and if Apollo was faked, so was all the evidence.  How?

[Romulus]

The scientific method doesn't apply to the study of history.

Which is to say a different epistemology describes the burden of proof in historical research, specifically where accusations of fraud or fakery are leveled. 

Obviously it behooves you to treat a scientific inquiry as an historical one because it shifts the burden of proof. I am not a historian, I am a scientist. I'm not sure what you are yet, but as the discussion progresses I will be able to make a more accurate judgement.

If a purported occurrence is plausible enough in its setting and has broad acceptance among the relevant scholars, a charge of fabrication specifically incurs the burden of proof.

That's called the bandwagon fallacy. It is a nonsensical assertion. I am not here to discuss his troy, but to debunk what I believe is a scientific hoax that cannot pass muster as a sceintific achievement.What is entered into the "annals of history" does not interest me since it is often simply an agreed upon lie.

Historians are very clear on this.  If you argue some historical event was faked or staged, you always have the burden of proof.

Again, it is dishonest and illogical to claim a debate which relies strictly on empirical evidence and involving science be treated as a debate about historical accuracy. Scientists often rewrite history by disproving it because they don't have to abide in those silly and incredulous rules.

[Romulus]

What would disprove Apollo?  How about an alternate explanation for the evidence?  And that's all the evidence, not a cherry-picked data point or three.  When the rockets were launched, where did they go?  How were the radio transmissions faked?  The viewings from Earth?  The photos?  The film?  The TV transmissions?  The rocks?  The core samples?  There are literally tons of evidence, and if Apollo was faked, so was all the evidence.  How?

Since I can explain every one of those pieces of evidence with an alternate possibility, it is up to you to prove them. If you wish i will post those alternate explainations.

[JayUtah]

I am not studying history nor do I have any intentions of entering into this debate under the pretense that I am. This is strictly a scientific inquiry...

The study of something that happened decades ago is inherently the study of history.  Trying to call it something different so that you can apply a different set of rules -- misuse them, more like it -- is where the dishonesty here lies.

You have what I call blind faith...

Nonsense.  You will find people here who are eminently well informed on the topic.

Science deals with what can be proved and history is often little more than a majority opinion.

No, science deals with what can be proved by the scientific method.  Proofs of other kinds arise in all other manner of human study, such as history and law.

History and science are water and oil...

Agreed, and you're applying the wrong standard.

...a scientific achievement is proved because it is "historically accurate" is not a valid argument.

Trying to paste the label "scientific achievement" on Apollo doesn't change its inherent nature.  That scientific principles were used to produce the means by which the enterprise was undertaken does not make the whole of it somehow magically susceptible to the scientific method.

I maintain that Apollo has not been proved as scientific achievement according to the scientific method...

The scientific method does not and cannot apply to the study of an historical event.  You're not the first person to try to weasel out of a burden of proof by this particular tap dance.

...and that it is not up to the critics of that claim to prove their positions, it is up to the claimant.

NASA and its contractors have provided a mountain of evidence to support their claim.  That mountain is widely studied and widely accepted as valid by the relevant professionals.  Hoax theorists spend nearly all their time trying to show that this evidence is fake.  And in doing so, they make affirmative claims to that effect -- often very specific ones.  When you make an affirmative claim, you incur a burden of proof for it.  So it is up to the claimants -- the hoax claimants -- to prove that the evidence we have came by way of fakery and fabrication, as they claim.

Every real scientist in the world that is actually competent and honest will tell you exactly the same thing.

No, I don't consider you a representative of "real scientists" or of any other group.

It is true that most scientists do not question NASA's narrative of events...

Why do you say this?

Where is the motivation for becoming an outcast and painted a nut by persons like Jay Windley who are skilled at doing this?

My goal is not to portray people as "nuts."  My goal is to test claims according to my understanding of the facts.  I simply point out facts that dispute people's beliefs, methods, and claims.  What is the motivation to challenge NASA or any other element of the mainstream?  Quite a number of psychologists have written papers on this.  Are you familiar with them?

[Romulus]

What would disprove Apollo?  How about an alternate explanation for the evidence?  And that's all the evidence, not a cherry-picked data point or three.  When the rockets were launched, where did they go?  How were the radio transmissions faked?  The viewings from Earth?  The photos?  The film?  The TV transmissions?  The rocks?  The core samples?  There are literally tons of evidence, and if Apollo was faked, so was all the evidence.  How?

Since I can explain every one of those pieces of evidence with an alternate possibility, it is up to you to prove them. If you wish i will post those alternate explanations.

I would like to add to this response the following:

Most of these alternate explanations cannot be proved to a certainty any more than your version of events can. But they can be proved to the same level of certainty. this therefor negates your claim and puts the burden of proof squarely on your shoulders as the one making the claim. this is the sceintific method, and we employ it for a good reason.

[JayUtah]

Obviously it behooves you to treat a scientific inquiry as an historical one because it shifts the burden of proof.

Whether an occurrence in history occurred as claimed or not is the study of history.  It is exactly the study of history.  You're trying to slap a different label on it so that you can use an oft-attempted way by which hoax claimants have previously tried to shift the burden of proof.

I am not a historian, I am a scientist.

No, you're patently neither.

I'm not sure what you are yet, but as the discussion progresses I will be able to make a more accurate judgement.

Nonsense.  You've already made up your mind that we're religious nuts following NASA according to blind faith.  Based on that, I don't see that this discussion will last very long.

That's called the bandwagon fallacy...

No, it's called the historical method.  There are quite a few books written on the subject.

What is entered into the "annals of history" does not interest me since it is often simply an agreed upon lie.

And if you are claiming Apollo was a lie the you have the burden of proof.

Again, it is dishonest and illogical to claim a debate which relies strictly on empirical evidence and involving science...

"Involving science" does not mean "testable by the scientific method."

Scientists often rewrite history by disproving it because they don't have to abide in those silly and incredulous rules.

So apply the "scientific method" and rewrite history.

[JayUtah]

Most of these alternate explanations cannot be proved to a certainty any more than your version of events can. But they can be proved to the same level of certainty.

By whose judgment?  Which "alternate explanations?"  Be specific.

...this therefor negates your claim and puts the burden of proof squarely on your shoulders...

Wow, you are seriously desperate not to have to make any sort of argument.

...this is the sceintific method, and we employ it for a good reason.

No, that is not the scientific method.  You do realize that professional scientists post here.  How far do you really think you can get with this bluff and bluster?

[Romulus]

I am not studying history nor do I have any intentions of entering into this debate under the pretense that I am. This is strictly a scientific inquiry...

The study of something that happened decades ago is inherently the study of history.  Trying to call it something different so that you can apply a different set of rules -- misuse them, more like it -- is where the dishonesty here lies.

No sir, obviously the dishonesty lies with yourself. Apollo is a claim of a scientific achievement that has never been proved by the scientific method. As a scientific claim of achievement, only honest way to approach the question is scientifically.What you or anyone else claims to believe is unimportant to me.

You have what I call blind faith...

Nonsense.  You will find people here who are eminently well informed on the topic.

I suggest that if you are as well informed as you claim to be then you must have serious doubts about the validity of your position.

Science deals with what can be proved and history is often little more than a majority opinion.

No, science deals with what can be proved by the scientific method.  Proofs of other kinds arise in all other manner of human study, such as history and law.

Correct. So why do you wish to ignore the scientific method, claiming it is invalid for judging the Apollo moonlandings?

History and science are water and oil...

Agreed, and you're applying the wrong standard.

I am satisfied to get you to admit that you willfully ignore the scientific method relying primarily on the bandwagon fallacy to prove your beliefs.

..a scientific achievement is proved because it is "historically accurate" is not a valid argument.

Trying to paste the label "scientific achievement" on Apollo doesn't change its inherent nature.  That scientific principles were used to produce the means by which the enterprise was undertaken does not make the whole of it somehow magically susceptible to the scientific method.

I beg to differ. If it does not pass scientific muster it is not a scientific achievement.

I maintain that Apollo has not been proved as scientific achievement according to the scientific method...

The scientific method does not and cannot apply to the study of an historical event.  You're not the first person to try to weasel out of a burden of proof by this particular tap dance.

Again, I am happy to get you to admit that you are resigned to treating Apollo as a "historical fact" while yourself weaseling out of proving it.

...and that it is not up to the critics of that claim to prove their positions, it is up to the claimant.

NASA and its contractors have provided a mountain of evidence to support their claim.  That mountain is widely studied and widely accepted as valid by the relevant professionals.  Hoax theorists spend nearly all their time trying to show that this evidence is fake.  And in doing so, they make affirmative claims to that effect -- often very specific ones.  When you make an affirmative claim, you incur a burden of proof for it.  So it is up to the claimants -- the hoax claimants -- to prove that the evidence we have came by way of fakery and fabrication, as they claim.

All of which can be explained without the necessity of an actual successful manned moonlanding.

Every real scientist in the world that is actually competent and honest will tell you exactly the same thing.

No, I don't consider you a representative of "real scientists" or of any other group.

Ad hominem noted.

It is true that most scientists do not question NASA's narrative of events...

Why do you say this?

Because they don't?

Where is the motivation for becoming an outcast and painted a nut by persons like Jay Windley who are skilled at doing this?

My goal is not to portray people as "nuts."  My goal is to test claims according to my understanding of the facts.

Claims involving scientific achievements require the sceintific method to prove of disprove, and you are obviously unwilling to do so.

I simply point out facts that dispute people's beliefs, methods, and claims.  What is the motivation to challenge NASA or any other element of the mainstream?  Quite a number of psychologists have written papers on this.  Are you familiar with them?

I know that psychology is a pseudoscience that is based entirely on opinions that have no basis of reality, just like your own beliefs about Apollo. There are as many opinions in psychology as there are people practicing it, and none of them are worthy of the title truth. I do know that labels are used to marginalize the bearers of uncomfortable or inconvenient truths.

[Romulus]

Obviously

I am not a historian, I am a scientist.

No, you're patently neither.

By the rules of your own forum this is not allowed as it is an ad hominem personal attack . Please remove all such ad hominems