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

[Echnaton]

Yes, huff and puff, grandiose claims, no substance, flounces in a hissy, and the occasional meltdown.

But I give him some points for comedy 

Romulus disintegrated so fast there is little other way to look at but as some bizarre comedic performance art.  A man wrestling with a darkly perverse muse. 

[Luke Pemberton]

Romulus disintegrated so fast there is little other way to look at but as some bizarre comedic performance art.

Quite. I really found it difficult to understand that NASA lied about everything yet he wanted the TLI data that NASA hadn't published so he could prove that they have lied about everything.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the laws of orbital mechanics well known, and wouldn't someone on the planet at the time be able to produce a set of orbital parameters for a TLI and simply publish them. The entire idea that he wanted their data (that he did not trust) to prove that they had lied was bizarre in the circumstances of his claim. I never quite understood this position.

[JayUtah]

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the laws of orbital mechanics well known

Since Newton's time.

I never quite understood this position.

He didn't want the data.  He wanted to argue that NASA didn't publish the data, as part of an overall plan to keep everyone in the dark.  When he was told the data were published, he wanted particulars so that he use them could accuse NASA of lying.  His approach is confusing because you're interpreting it as a quest for information or the desire to make a reasoned argument.  Interpret it instead as forming a new attack on NASA with every new bit of information, without regard for anything that has been said previously.

[Zakalwe]

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the laws of orbital mechanics well known, and wouldn't someone on the planet at the time be able to produce a set of orbital parameters for a TLI and simply publish them. The entire idea that he wanted their data (that he did not trust) to prove that they had lied was bizarre in the circumstances of his claim. I never quite understood this position.

Nobody that has the ability to think logically would take this position as it doesn't make any sense. But, then, if they had the ability to think logically they wouldn't be a hoax-believer in the first place.

[Luke Pemberton]

Since Newton's time.

Phew, so all I learned at high school and college (deliberate Americanisms from the Brit) are indeed true. I didn't waste my time after all. 

His approach is confusing because you're interpreting it as a quest for information or the desire to make a reasoned argument.  Interpret it instead as forming a new attack on NASA with every new bit of information, without regard for anything that has been said previously.

I found the position of his logical constructs difficult to understand rather than the mode of his argument, he was basically looking for a fight, that much I do comprehend. I rather choked on my coffee when he claimed he wanted data from an organisation that he accussed of lying so he could prove they were lying - all in one setence. I can't quite connect that position to a common logical fallacy.

[Luke Pemberton]

Nobody that has the ability to think logically would take this position as it doesn't make any sense. But, then, if they had the ability to think logically they wouldn't be a hoax-believer in the first place.

There is that. I've clarfied my position with a reply to Jay, I'm really searching for a logical deconstruct of his data line in a single encompassing fallacy.

[JayUtah]

Phew, so all I learned at high school and college (deliberate Americanisms from the Brit) are indeed true. I didn't waste my time after all. 

One could argue you should have been outside playing football, and later, drinking beer.  Waste is subjective.

I found the position of his logical constructs difficult to understand rather than the mode of his argument, he was basically looking for a fight, that much I do comprehend. I rather choked on my coffee when he claimed he wanted data from an organisation that he accussed of lying so he could prove they were lying - all in one setence. I can't quite connect that position to a common logical fallacy.

Circular reasoning?

[Luke Pemberton]

One could argue you should have been outside playing football, and later, drinking beer.  Waste is subjective.

Would that be the oval ball or round ball you are referring to? I did spend time with an oval ball in the winter, but it didn't involve pads, and the game was played in two halfs not four quarters. I reverted to a form of baseball in the summer months, but it just wouldn't be cricket to compare it with baseball. 

Circular reasoning?

Obviously. I'm not great with always connecting faulty logic to the logical fallacy. I can spot the errors in the logical argument, but pinning a name to it I'm less than secure with.

[Northern Lurker]

After watching several HB:s having problems with Apollo trajectories I'm getting feeling that they have naive expectation for google maps style directions:

-take off and head 100 miles up
-turn 90° to left
-take two orbits
-aim for the 3rd star from right for 3 hours
-aim for the moon for 2 days

Instead of quite cryptic orbital elements and orbital mathematics...

Lurky

[JayUtah]

Would that be the oval ball or round ball you are referring to? I did spend time with an oval ball in the winter, but it didn't involve pads, and the game was played in two halfs not four quarters. I reverted to a form of baseball in the summer months, but it just wouldn't be cricket to compare it with baseball. 

In the spirit of Anglo-American cooperation I left that ambiguous, as also the temperature of the beer.

Obviously. I'm not great with always connecting faulty logic to the logical fallacy. I can spot the errors in the logical argument, but pinning a name to it I'm less than secure with.

Taxonomizing the logical fallacies is not as easy or useful as you think.  Aristotle's "sophistical refutations" paint one picture, and a number of subsequent attempts end up overlapping this with that and then yet another thing.  Can one reason in circles without also begging the question?  What exactly did Aristotle mean by ignoratio elenchi?  Is it the same as "changing horses?"  Or is it more like a non sequitur?

[Luke Pemberton]

After watching several HB:s having problems with Apollo trajectories I'm getting feeling that they have naive expectation for google maps style directions:

Absolutely, it's not like driving a car. A classic example of the detail involved is the Voyager 2 mission and how the 'alignment' of the planets were exploited to send Voyager 2 to the edges of the solar system. There are so many facets to setting up an orbit and I defer it to the real experts.

One of the classic fails in hoax history is the combinatorial arguments of Jarrah White and Ralph Rene and their Apollo 13 analyses.

Jarrah claimed that Apollo 13 would not have enough fuel to enter a lunar orbit so could never return to Earth. One issue with this argument, Apollo 13 did not need fuel to enter lunar orbit, it was on a free return trajectory. To paraphrase the movie: Newton was in the driving seat. They did use fuel for course correction.

Then there was Ralph's argument. He claimed that the moon would not have 'slowed' Apollo 13 down sufficiently to bring Apollo 13 back on a free return. Given that he claimed to over turn Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation, I'm not surprised he did not understand the higher level orbital mechanics involved in free return.

[Luke Pemberton]

...as also the temperature of the beer.

Cheap shot, but made me laugh. (We get a lot of stick from Australians about 'ale' temperature.)

Taxonomizing the logical fallacies is not as easy or useful as you think.  Aristotle's "sophistical refutations" paint one picture, and a number of subsequent attempts end up overlapping this with that and then yet another thing.  Can one reason in circles without also begging the question?  What exactly did Aristotle mean by ignoratio elenchi?  Is it the same as "changing horses?"  Or is it more like a non sequitur?

That summarises the difficulty I have with taxomony. One could argue that by omitting data from an argument one is drawing an irrelevent conclusion, but one can invoke several fallacies to counter the position, such as fallacy of omission. Sometimes the fallacy is clear, as with Jarrah's (sorry) 67% film speed debacle. His correction was a very definite example of circular reasoning and thus easy to label with a fallacy. Your explanation helps. Thanks.

[ka9q]

He didn't want the data.  He wanted to argue that NASA didn't publish the data, as part of an overall plan to keep everyone in the dark. 

Which explains why he totally ignored my message pointing to the NASA document giving the detailed (and I mean detailed) trajectory for the Apollo 11 mission.

Or maybe it was just too late in the free-for-all before he flounced.

I do have to say that some of my most satisfying moments in arguments with hoaxers is when I give them a piece of data they've been screaming for in the mistaken belief that it doesn't exist. It's never anything that they really want, will bother to read or could even understand if they tried. It's just some MacGuffin they claim NASA has suppressed as part of the conspiracy. When I provide it, they invariably move the goalposts and claim that it's just NASA propaganda or isn't what they really want. But I can still see the wind suddenly leave their sails.

[Luke Pemberton]

Which explains why he totally ignored my message pointing to the NASA document giving the detailed (and I mean detailed) trajectory for the Apollo 11 mission.

That's new information. You PM'd him?

Or maybe it was just too late in the free-for-all before he flounced.

Yes, it does become a free-for-all. I find when it gets like that I spend time writing a reply and the big red box tells me that there have been 10 other replies before mine. I really should check that others have not made the same point before posting.

When I provide it, they invariably move the goalposts and claim that it's just NASA propaganda or isn't what they really want. But I can still see the wind suddenly leave their sails.

Then there is Cosmored, the serial spammer, who claimed that no one could really characterise the cislunar radiation environment during Apollo because the data was incomplete and has only just been understood. I did ask him how in that case the CTs could actually quantify the space environment to make such a robust case. No answer.

Then there is Jarrah and his flounce at the IMBd. He claims that Jay was asking him the impossible when requested to correlate proton data with H-alpha prominences. He ran away and then made a video about Jay was asking him to provide proton data when the GOES records only started in 1976. So Jarrah, how do you reconcile the graph that you use for a SPE from the 1950's to calculate dose for the Apollo astronauts?

[ka9q]

Which explains why he totally ignored my message pointing to the NASA document giving the detailed (and I mean detailed) trajectory for the Apollo 11 mission.

That's new information. You PM'd him?

See my reply #368.