Author Topic: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?  (Read 224988 times)

Offline Northern Lurker

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #375 on: February 04, 2015, 06:18:51 PM »
</lurk>

Hi everyone!

Long time lurker, first time poster here. My user name is actually misnomer, it should be Nordic Lurker. As a citizen of European, liberal, social democratic country I don't have any dogs in this fight. Also English is not my primary language so I apologise for my lack of grammar and other mistakes.

I have been thinking about Romulus' idea about history needing reproducibility. Taking that line of thought to it's logical end means that since none has reproduced a Tyrannosaurus Rex (the film doesn't count), the Jura Period is just a myth. Also assassination of Abraham Lincoln and JFK are unreproduced so they must be myth too. So are Pearl Harbor, Normandy Invasion, Vietnam and Korean wars and so on...

I admit not being a scientist or a historian but I'm thinking that Romulus' idea of using scientific method for history just bovine excrement.

Also wasn't "Nobody has been to Moon" the null hypothesis until NASA came and showed the moon rocks and core samples, still photos, telecasts and film made on the way to Moon, while being there and on the way back. Not to mention professional and amateur astronomers and radio operators who followed the missions to moon and back. And small mountain of technical documentation, testimony of the astronauts and  of those 400 000 people working for the space program. And designs, procedures, facilities and project management techniques that survive to this day. After world's aerospace practitioners, geologists and other professional accepted that evidence "NASA went to moon" is now the null hypothesis.

To overthrow the current null hypothesis you don't have to prove negative (NASA wasn't on the Moon). You just need to prove that those rocks, pictures, telecasts etc. are fake and make consistent narrative how the hoax was planned, prepared and perpetrated.

Northern Lurker


edit: typo
<lurk>

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #376 on: February 04, 2015, 06:27:54 PM »
</lurk>

Hi everyone!

Long time lurker, first time poster here. My user name is actually misnomer, it should be Nordic Lurker. As a citizen of European, liberal, social democratic country I don't have any dogs in this fight. Also English is not my primary language so I apologise for my lack of grammar and other mistakes.

I have been thinking about Romulus' idea about history needing reproducibility. Taking that line of thought to it's logical end means that since none has reproduced a Tyrannosaurus Rex (the film doesn't count), the Jura Period is just a myth. Also assassination of Abraham Lincoln and JFK are unreproduced so they must be myth too. So are Pearl Harbor, Normandy Invasion, Vietnam and Korean wars and so on...

I admit not being a scientist or a historian but I'm thinking that Romulus' idea of using scientific method for history just bovine excrement.

Also wasn't "Nobody has been to Moon" the null hypothesis until NASA came and showed the moon rocks and core samples, still photos, telecasts and film made on the way to Moon, while being there and on the way back. Not to mention professional and amateur astronomers and radio operators who followed the missions to moon and back. And small mountain of technical documentation, testimony of the astronauts and  of those 400 000 people working for the space program. And designs, procedures, facilities and project management techniques that survive to this day. After world's aerospace practitioners, geologists and other professional accepted that evidence "NASA went to moon" is now the null hypothesis.

To overthrow the current null hypothesis you don't have to prove negative (NASA wasn't on the Moon). You just need to prove that those rocks, pictures, telecasts etc. are fake and make consistent narrative how the hoax was planned, prepared and perpetrated.

Northern Lurker


edit: typo
<lurk>

Welcome to the forum

In this one single first ever post of yours, you have made infinitely more sense than Romulus/IDW has made in all of his 189 posts put together.
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline Abaddon

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #377 on: February 04, 2015, 06:29:21 PM »
welcome, lurker.

What you will find here is a whole lot of expertise and information to beat the band. Enjoy it.

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #378 on: February 04, 2015, 06:33:20 PM »
Welcome Lurker. Great 1st post.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #379 on: February 04, 2015, 08:32:37 PM »
Welcome, and thanks for a great first post.

I admit not being a scientist or a historian but I'm thinking that Romulus' idea of using scientific method for history just bovine excrement.

It is, and not just specifically on the point of replication and reproducibility.  What we call "the scientific method" (or rather, it's logical and philosophical underpinnings) is more properly called the hypothetico-deductive method.  History is more inductive.

You point out the mountain of evidence that attends Apollo.  Inductive reasoning attempts to reason from specific to general.  More to the point, it takes the thousands of fiddly bits of evidence such as rocks, photos, radio observation, direct observation, etc. and distills them down to a general statement, "People went to the Moon."  That's the same mode of reasoning a courtroom employs.  The jury is asked to distill a bunch of testimony, documents, and circumstantial evidence down to a general statement, "The defendant is guilty."  If the evidence doesn't clearly marshal under that simple statement, then the induction fails.

So a more historically-directed method for determining authenticity looks at all the fiddly bits and tries to determine whether all the evidence best induces into "Apollo missions were real," or into "Apollo missions were a hoax."  The latter appears to be an inductive conclusion under which the evidence fits.  Statements such as "They faked the photos," and "They faked the rocks," seem to marshal the evidence properly, but the parsimony rule of induction says you can't just speculate.  The more speculation you leave unproven, the greater the "inductive leap" at the end.  And the conclusion with the smallest inductive leap is the one most rationally held.

Romulus proposes an inductive chasm.  Which is to say, he seems to think all he has to do is come up with some conjectural explanation and he has satisfied his burden.  If he can only merely think of way it could happen alternatively, there is -- according to him -- no value in the conventional scenario no matter how well supported it is.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #380 on: February 04, 2015, 11:07:24 PM »
It is, and not just specifically on the point of replication and reproducibility.  What we call "the scientific method" (or rather, it's logical and philosophical underpinnings) is more properly called the hypothetico-deductive method.  History is more inductive.
But isn't it fair to say that we can (and do) use the scientific method to test individual elements of evidence for some historical event? The canonical example here is the laboratory analysis of returned Apollo samples. The scientific requirement of repeatability can be satisfied by having another geologist repeat a test, assuming the original lunar sample or a comparable one is still available.

Of course, this merely proves that the samples in question came from the moon, not that Apollo actually happened. But in the context of all the other evidence (extensive engineering and operational records, third party observations of mission events, surplus hardware on public display, etc) such scientific tests certainly support it.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #381 on: February 04, 2015, 11:40:12 PM »
But isn't it fair to say that we can (and do) use the scientific method to test individual elements of evidence for some historical event?

Absolutely yes.  And such individual tests can be undertaken in questions of historical authenticity.  It's important to recognize the difference between these small-scoped individual tests, which often are susceptible to the hypothetico-deductive method, and the broad overall question, which is inductive.

Let's say a boot is found at the site of a purported battlefield.  A comparative morphological examination could reveal it to be consistent with boots made for Prussian soldiers in the late 1700s.  That is "soft" science, but often helpful and revealing.  Additionally the boot leather could be subjected to radiocarbon dating.  The narrow hypothesis here might be, "The boot was made in the late 1700s."  The deductive part of the H-D process is to deduce that if the boot was made in that time, the carbon isotope ratios will be consistent with that age.  In that way, we propose this (of possibly several) methods as a way to test the hypothesis empirically.  The falsification would occur if the ratios were reliably computed for the sample but were not consistent with a late 1700s date.  But if the ratio matches to an acceptable epsilon, our prior deduction now allows us to assert the hypothesis.

This might be part of a larger historical question such as, "Did Prussian soldiers fight on this battlefield in 1780?"  The scientific confidence in the age of the boot and the comparative assurance of its style may surely convince us that at least a Prussian boot was here.  Whether the historical question is confirmed at the larger scale would require other examinations such as whether the bulk of evidence (not just the boot, but perhaps also uniforms, ammunition, Prussian money, etc.) induces to that conclusion.  If the evidence is just the boot then you would entertain other possibilities such as a Prussian boot borrowed or captured.  In the end the large question is entirely inductive, even though it has been considered according to several deductive steps.

A similar process is followed for scientific evidence in court, such as crime-scene analysis.  If we hypothesize that the accused was at the crime scene, we can deduce that he left behind evidence such as DNA, fingerprints, footprints.  The null hypothesis is that the accused is innocent, which implies the null sub-hypothesis that he was not at the crime scene.  The comparison of DNA is a reasonably reliable process, hence we deduce further that if a DNA match occurs, it is because the DNA-bearing material was physically there and not because of a fault in the process.  If we find a match, the null sub-hypothesis is falsified -- the accused was evidently at the crime scene.  A jury may decide later that this and other evidence is best considered inductively by the parsimonious verdict that he is guilty.

That the individual elements are deductive indicates only the form of reasoning we use to structure the experiment.  It does not guarantee that the result is deductively strong.  Deductions would be something like, "DNA is unique to a person; the sample matches the subject, therefore the sample came from the subject."  That doesn't rule out laboratory error or prosecutorial misconduct.  But if the results are contested in that way, the defense bears the burden of proof for that point alone.  Jury instructions are explicit in cases like that, and all the courtroom mechanisms that vary based on who carries the burden of proof shift to favor the prosecution.

Romulus' unique formulation of methodology seems to center upon his simple mention of an alternative as an effective defense or rebuttal, without any further substantiation.  The pro-Apollo camp not having affirmatively and conclusively refuted his speculative alternatives to him constitutes an abrogation of the original burden of proof and therefore somehow unscientific.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1588
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #382 on: February 05, 2015, 02:18:45 AM »
</lurk>

Hi everyone!

<lurk>

Welcome on board, and thanks for the great post.

I was thinking along similar lines last night. Coincidentally, a news article popped up about Harper Lee, who is wrtiting a follow up to her best selling "To Kill a Mockingbird". I applied Rommy's "logic" to this story (after downing a half-bottle of whisky and striking myself on the forehead with a large hammer to get to the required intellectual level  ;D ) and came up with the conclusion that "To Kill a Mockinbird" is indeed a fake. The author wrote a single book which was published in 1960. She never repeated the exercise. She was a famous recluse and refused to give interviews. She rarely referred to the book

That is simply not true. Armstrong Harper Lee was a recluse who appeared to be highly reluctant to represent NASA "To Kill a Mockingbird", and he she very seldom spoke of being on the moon a world famous author. He She has however made several comments that many interpret as cryptic confessions that it was a hoax attempts to write another book, all of which failed to be published. Site a reference to Armstrong Harper Lee pontificating about the moonlandings"To Kill a Mockingbird"
Now, by Rommy's standard, Harper Lee is the perpetrator of a terrible hoax. She must be in league with a shadowy organisation that pretended to publish millions of copies of her work. Heck, she has even manipulated the public into believing that there was a major motion picture. The nefarious influence of this shadowy organisation has managed to mind-control people like Gregory Peck who supports the lie by claiming to act in the movie. This shadowy organisation is supported at the highest level- witness her being awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Armed with this shocking insight into a 50 year-long conspiracy I closed all the curtains in my house (the NWO probably have snipers lurking in the bushes...) and went to my bookshelf. Funnily enough, "To Kill a Mockingbird" was still there. With words and everything. I logged onto the 'Net and the critical reviews were still there. Just like those Moon rocks, hoards of documents, designs, plans, videos of the launches. But I KNOW the truth and it's up to you lot to prove that Harper lee isn't part of some nefarious hoax. Isn't that right, eh Romulus.  :o :o :o ::) ::)
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline dwight

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 685
    • Live Tv From the Moon
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #383 on: February 05, 2015, 06:06:08 AM »
I love how we all should be in jail. Id love to hear the judge during sentencing.
"Honeysuckle TV on line!"

Offline Count Zero

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Pad 39A July 14,1969
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #384 on: February 05, 2015, 09:22:40 AM »
I love how we all should be in jail. Id love to hear the judge during sentencing.

"Wanton attacks on self-esteem... Grievously wounding an inner child... Blatant disregard for superiority-as-claimed... Callous refusal to accept this and other claims... Repeated harassment in the form of requests for supporting evidence..."
"What makes one step a giant leap is all the steps before."

Offline Dr.Acula

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #385 on: February 05, 2015, 11:11:31 AM »

"Wanton attacks on self-esteem... Grievously wounding an inner child... Blatant disregard for superiority-as-claimed... Callous refusal to accept this and other claims... Repeated harassment in the form of requests for supporting evidence..."

Guilty!

Penalty: You have to watch all video-clips from Jarrah one after another in full volume to enjoy the voice.

 ;D ;D ;D
Nice words aren't always true and true words aren't always nice - Laozi

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #386 on: February 05, 2015, 11:18:43 AM »
I believe the Constitution forbids that kind of punishment.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Dr.Acula

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #387 on: February 05, 2015, 11:21:38 AM »
I believe the Constitution forbids that kind of punishment.

It took some seconds for me to realize, that you would be the accused.
In this case: acquittal

Now let's take a beer.. or two  :)
Nice words aren't always true and true words aren't always nice - Laozi

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1588
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #388 on: February 05, 2015, 11:29:00 AM »
Guilty!

Penalty: You have to watch all video-clips from Jarrah one after another in full volume to enjoy the voice.

 ;D ;D ;D




Just make sure that you have a sick bucket to hand!
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline Dr.Acula

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #389 on: February 05, 2015, 11:31:49 AM »




Just make sure that you have a sick bucket to hand!

What was it about the Constitution?  :D
Nice words aren't always true and true words aren't always nice - Laozi