Some people have used extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence to argue against the moon landings. They happened a long
time ago (though not as long ago as the resurrection, supposedly), we don’t
find people going to the moon at all these days, so how do we know the whole
thing wasn’t just made up?
6 comments:
Victor, I'm very surprised to read this coming from you. Maybe you were being sarcastic and I failed to pick up on it? In any case, it is trivial to show, using a Bayesian framework, that Neil Armstrong landing on the moon was/is not an extraordinary claim.
Well, I think oversimplified versions of ECREE fall victim to this kind of response, and it does raise the question of how you formulate and use the principle. It isn't as easy as it is often made to appear.
That's odd. I don't think it's hard to do for anyone familiar with Bayes's Theorem and the epistemic interpretation of probability. See here. (It looks like Patheos clobbered the graphics on that page, so I'll have to try to fix it. But it should be easy enough to get the gist even without the graphics displaying.
We do have extraordinary evidence that men landed on the moon. And the evidence is examinable -- it's objective, reliable, and verifiable.
How can men overcome gravity and travel through space? By jet propulsion (and a myriad of complex engineering feats) that not only exist today, but are traceable through their origin and development and use during our voyages to the moon.
How can man breathe and survive in space? All through technology that exists today, and can be traced from its origin and development through its use in our voyages to the moon.
Jet propulsion (a controlled explosion, finely directed) is an extraordinary event. And yet it can be repeated, and explained, in a myriad of ways that are supported by everything else we know.
--------
VR: "...we don’t find people going to the moon at all these days, so how do we know the whole thing wasn’t just made up?"
We don't see apes giving birth to human babies now, so how do we know that Evolution isn't just made up!
Both of the questions above indicate that the person posing the challenge doesn't understand the thing they believe they are criticizing.
some intellectually dishonest fool: "Victor, I'm very surprised to read this coming from you ..."
VR: "Well, I think oversimplified versions of ECREE ..."
Oversimplified? As though there is some other kind! The whole ECREE schtick is intellectual dishonesty, top to bottom.
You thought of a quite effective illustration of its inherent intellectual dishonesty. Good.
So, why are backing down? Why are you vascillating, why are you assuming the Stockholm-position, just because that intellectually dishonest fool is playing the "More In Sadness Than In Anger" game?
that fool: "In any case, it is trivial to show, using a Bayesian framework, that Neil Armstrong landing on the moon was/is not an extraordinary claim."
In any case, it is trivial to show, using a knowledge of human nature coupled with the "liberal" dictum that resorting to violence is proof that one has lost the argument, that Buzz Aldrin's vicious attack on that hapless moon landing denier is all the proof we need that no moon landing ever took place.
Sheesh!
Post a Comment