What is Something Scientific that you just don't believe in at all?
EDIT: Let's cool it with the downvotes, dudes. We're not out to cut funding to your black hole detection chamber or revoke the degrees of chiropractors just because a couple of us don't believe in it, okay? Chill out, participate with the prompt and continue with having a nice day. I'm sure almost everybody has something to add.
You're viewing a single thread.
I'm infamous on Reddit as "that moon landing denier gal". Sorry but I just don't buy it. No goalpost was safe that decade and you don't need the analytical videos to tell you that.
My main come back for this: It was the height of the Cold War and the Soviets didnt question it. Also, recently, the Chinese moon missions has photographs of modules left by the Apollo missions on the moon.
To be fair, the Soviets also thought the space race to be all done with once they put their astronauts in orbit, and they weren't really paying attention when America went to the moon.
At the time anyways. Especially the population at large wasn't interested. It strikes me as weird to say you're not interested in proving superiority in a certain field when you are when the whole point of making a statement is to be declarative about it.
No they didn't. They had their own moon program and announced their intentions to land in 1961 before the Americans announced in 1962
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_crewed_lunar_programs
If making a statement, why be quiet about it? That ruins the whole point of making a statement like how better someone is at something, doesn't it? The civilian population in particular didn't really care.
I don't understand what you are saying. They had a moon landing program.
Also, do you really think that if the Soviets had the opportunity to embarrass the Americans by proving the landing was fake, they wouldn't take it? Of course they would. Instead they were able to track the Apollo mission all the way and knew it was real.
But they also said they weren't interested in the space race. Note that you can be interested in an endeavor other people are interested with without wanting to engage in a "race" with them. In this case they are claimed as being interested in showing off while simultaneously being insecure about said thing. I would be puzzled if someone's method of showing off was precisely that, to not show off.
You say the rest like they did see it that way, that we absolutely went to the moon. How do you think censorship works? There is plenty of documentation about the case against the moon landing. Despite looking like plot armor though, the power of our culture has promoted the counters to it over it though.
Even if the Soviets had given up on the space race, they still had a vested interest in embarrassing America. They had every motivation to prove that America faked it, but they didn't do it, because they had all the evidence that it was real. They could track the space craft and listen in on the same signals everyone else did.
All documentation against the moon landing has been thoroughly debunked many times. But you don't care about that.
You don't have to trust the Americans, there is plenty of independent third party evidence from multiple sources
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Who says I don't care about that? I just put the concept of "debunked" on what I would think is a better scale.
Things you can observe > Things you can infer > Things which suggest something circumstantially > Things others say they observe
Every time I see someone say they're going to debunk it, they give what seems to be a mix of good and bad logic, all the while saying "you saw it here" like we just watched them interpret scripture, often before belittling people who don't adhere to it. It's virtually always what happens.
A good example of this is Mythbusters. They had a whole special episode for it and gave all these reasons but then finished it off with a "ha, we put reflectors up there as proof" before making less than civil remarks towards non-adherents. I was preteen age and my response was to ask "you mean to say probes can't carry things to the moon". But you can't respond to someone on TV, which is why something like that sticks. But mainly, me denying it comes from the context, everything else is happenstance.
I think of things like one might a courtroom. You have a harmony of cross-examination/evidence/witness testimony and you aim for what serves to demonstrate and then suggest certain things. People come in supporting the landing and they have the witnesses while the non-adherents bring in the questions. If it was a murder, it would look very circumstantial, and if it was Mythbusters, almost their whole career, as their experiments were far from perfect, as fun as they were to watch. Court, even mock court, has protocol after all (as a human services worker you see a lot of crazy things pushed forward because everyone went with the imagery as the final word). Anything I hypothesize outside of that is subjective, and if someone disagrees, I respect that or invite them to talk about it like human people (or to accept their invitation to do so).
Of note, the article (and you when you mention the signal detection, but again, think of the times) says third parties found stuff, but third parties and first parties aren't necessarily separate, or am I missing something?
Yikes
So much for honestly answering the question OP had. What did people expect, the status quo?
Posting a decades long debunked conspiracy theory just isn't a very interesting response.
OP didn't ask for interesting responses, OP asked for honest responses. Should I have been dishonest?
No, you're reply is perfectly fine. It's just boring, so it will get downvoted.
TIL why people here downvote, i.e. in vain. So much for adding the downvoting feature.
I think it's working pretty well.
But if you don't like it there are frontend that hide/disable votes for you.
I'm not saying that, just saying it takes me by surprise people would be so open about using it so personally.
OP asked for scientific disagreements, not geopolitical conspiracy theories that are readily disproven in a number of ways, including all the still living people who saw it with their own eyes.
If my answer wasn't a scientific disagreement, what would you call it?
A conspiracy theory, what would you call it? Because you've provided zero scientific facts that you disagree with, nor any scientific background for your claims. It's just simply "I don't believe X happened."
I said "I don't adhere to this having happened."
Everyone else says "I do adhere to this having happened."
That's called a disagreement.
The disagreement in question is whether or not there was a moon landing in 1969.
You also say I've provided zero scientific facts that I disagree with.
Is the moon not scientific?
You also say I've provided no scientific background.
First off, you can't prove a negative, and second, there's as much history involved as there is science.
Also, nobody said you couldn't also call it a conspiracy theory, though I'd wonder how you define those.
No, you're disagreeing with a historical event in living memory, not a scientific claim. You're purporting a political conspiracy. As in, you believe that the US government has conspired to fake an accomplishment, and the rest of the world was either duped or complicit.
There's no scientific disagreement whatsoever here. If there is, spell it out for me. What scientific claim are you disputing? "The moon is scientific" is meaningless. So is literally everything if you want to spin it that way.
There’s no scientific disagreement whatsoever here. If there is, spell it out for me.
I think both the fact a lot of us are discussing science here and the fact it was on Mythbusters proves it's silly to say it's not of a scientific nature to mention it. It's certainly more scientific than many of the other things on this list, such as humans fighting grizzly bears and mothers co-sleeping with infants.
Or to put it another way...
in living memory
You remember being on the moon? Or are you saying you remember it some other way and that doing so invalidates me like it's the same thing?
Bullshit you actually believe somethig that can be disproven by buying a $60 kids toy and looking up at the moon through it
Or at least, you only believe it at this point because changing your view would rock your tiny world too much
I don't know where the idea came from that I'm not open to discussion about it and possibly seeing that I'm wrong about it. Equally, though, I don't know where the idea came from that the bombardment in the replies to my answer to a question about scientific things we don't believe (which also has plenty of people saying they don't believe in the big bang) is considered "discussion".
I guess I'll start such a discussive process by saying I had a toy like that once, though never did I see anyone or their possessions on the moon with it.
What do you think about the event when about Buzz Aldrin punched a moonlanding denier in the face after they called him a coward, liar, and a thief?
Genuinely curious. I know I can't know for certain - I cant go back in time and ride on that rocket with them. But the guy that supposedly went there seems pretty convinced he did. Even if I did believe it was faked, I'd have a hard time believing he didn't think he went.
There wouldn't be any other way I could think of it aside from it being nothing short of escalation. Aldrin's defenders would later claim the accuser "cornered him", but this is certainly neither true nor would make sense in the context. Sometimes the narrative is going to do what a narrative does, though I (unlike some here) do not judge others for having different conclusions than me.
Disbelieving in evidence doesn't make you more moral
Judgment thereof does though.
Cool, thanks for the response!
You're welcome :) I'm glad there's at least one happy person here.
I don't agree with you but I thank you for participating in the prompt, and I want you to know that you have value.
You're welcome. Seeing the reaction, I'm wondering if people read the title of the OP and were expecting popular opinions. Lemmy is more Reddit than Lemmy probably wants to admit.
Well there is not much meaningful discussion to be had about a decades old conspiracy theory that has been memed on plenty in the past. I think that is where the downvotes are coming from.
If that's the standard, there aren't really a lot of meaningful discussions anywhere on this thread to be honest. Any documentaries on mothers co-sleeping with infants, humans fighting bears, or one for each of the three people denying the big bang theory?
All of those are more interesting topics than a dumb mega-debunked conspiracy theory. Seems like your standard for interesting is History channel at 2 am?
You say that like the opposing standard for interesting ever had a timeslot on any channel. I wouldn't hold this against anyone though, I for one am not one to be as judgy or to come to a question like this expecting narrative conformity.
This is all performative. You knew you'd draw ire and that was your goal. Otherwise you probably wouldn't have announced you're reddit famous for believing a slew of debunked lies
Some people are so boring that they have to have a schtick. This is hers. She doesn’t actually believe it.
Edgy teenagers love to do this shit and sadly a lot of people never mature past that mindset.
I didn't come to announce I was "reddit famous", I said I just happen to be known for this one stance, followed by me hyperlinking a part of the comment as long as I could demonstrate. Regardless of who thinks what consists of debunked lies, I did not come to draw ire nor did I know I would, especially in anti-Western-culture Lemmy of all places (and I'm not even anti-Western-cultre). And that's assuming it makes someone worthy of blame for the judgment they receive. Genuine question, is it so hard for a dozen people to say "I respectfully disagree" or to simply discuss things like thought-provoking humans on a science post, or is basic human courtesy boring too?