I was so relieved to come across this discussion forum and find so many people discussing this topic in a rational way.

The Fox programme aired on UK TV this week and I have been discussing the "Lunar Conspiracy" ad naseum with work colleagues.

I expected everyone to dismiss the "Lunar conspiracy" out of hand but I was really dissapointed to discover that the gave the programme credence. Nearly everyone that I work with either has a PhD or is working towards one yet none of them had actually thought about the claims made. Their responses to my debunking consisted of phrases like "well I don't believe we went to the Moon".

What hope do we have of promoting critical though amongst the public when SCIENTISTS can't even think critically.

Oh well, perhaps they were just winding me up (I hope so). I suppose I'll find out if Channel 5 ever airs "Rods".

I have found it startling that many PhDs and PhD candidates in the American education system have also risen to that level of education without having taken any courses in formal logic or rhetoric. Doctoral research has become so focused and specialized that it no longer marks one as a generally well-educated person. It's doubly ironic that a doctor of "philosophy" can miss out on the central tenet of philosophy -- reason.

Fortunately the PhDs in my environs obtained their degrees in engineering, physics, or related "hard" disciplines and so far are not fooled by the pseudoscientific arguments of the conspiracists.

Clavius has received many, many hits and several nice letters from U.K. folks recently. Proof the system works.

I've recieved emails from the UK, New Zealand and Australia as well. I always link to Clavius in my replies!

I have noticed that many of my colleagues whilst brilliant and insightful in their own field have very little knowledge or desire for knowledge about other unrelated areas. They think my interest in Astronomy is somewhat bizarre.

Many years ago the philosophy of science was a mandatory subject at the university where I was an undergrad but this was phased out. I think that is really unfortunate.

I was very impressed with the Clavius site and I will certainly be refering people there - if can bear to continue talking to them about the "Lunar conspiracy".

I will never forget the first time I saw the Moon through my telescope. I really understood then why we had to visit. Nothing to do beating other countries in the arms/space race but more a really visceral sense of "Wow, that's amazing, let's go!".

If the truth is plain enough, who cares what anyone believes. I can't believe people (especially Phd's) who, when proven wrong will cling to the "Well, I believe that..." excuse instead of revising their thinking.

__________________
If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the precipitate.

<a name="20020824.12:0"> page 20020824.12:0 aka O
On 2002-08-19 09:06, Chemist wrote: To?
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...eConstant.html
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...028&forum=2&40
------
anyWAY? Grapes if you do happen across this
I was interested to see SomerFielt{sp}5) (Sommerfeld 1957
mentioned on the page? back in the 60's
for a while, I had a difficult time
transfering from PSU
I call it Police State University
http://web.pdx.edu/
to Pacific
http://www.pacificu.edu/studentlife/briefs.php
it may have been him ? Who wrote me a letter?
so in the PSU/PU debait / just leave out the state Oregon
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~anthro/

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-08-25 04:33 ]</font>

Nose all, seize all, ...not.

Sommerfeld wrote you a letter? To help you? Or hurt you?

I have to take issue, a little bit, at the idea that only people whose higher education is in "hard" sciences can think through the arguments presented by HBs (or anyone else). Or even that they're necessarily better equipped to do so. Granted, a physicist or engineer can speak more authoritatively about physics or engineering than a layperson. But critical thinking and logic are not restricted to such disciplines.

__________________
PC load letter? What the @%$# does that mean?

Mola Mola, I hope you succeed in converting your fellow British back to the light-side.

On a related note, my sister had seen the aforementioned Fox-tv program a year and a half ago. Now, she has always believed that humans had landed on the moon. After viewing the program, she still believed the moon landings were real, but was puzzled by the "evidence" presented on the program.

I showed her the explanations from this website, and that cleared up the matter.

The problem with TV programs like this, is that they only present one point of view. When they ask a skeptic if he/she can explain things otherwise, that footage is always conveniently edited to make it seem like they can't explain it otherwise.

_________________
Books make a lot of money.
Tourism helps generate a lot of money.
Maybe that's what drives the conspiracy theorists?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Shade on 2002-08-26 14:53 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Shade on 2002-08-26 14:53 ]</font>

... Doctoral research has become so focused and specialized that it no longer marks one as a generally well-educated person. ...

Isn't that the definition of an "expert?" Someone who learns more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing?

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

I suppose that's one definition of expertise. I try to learn more and more about more and more.

My point, however, is that a doctor's degree in, say, engineering will focus on some obscure aspect of engineering, such as predicting chemical erosion as a failure mode in airframe components. Nothing in that student's course of study will necessarily test his knowledge about the scientific method, categorical logic, inductive or deductive reasoning, or any of the other aspects of epistemology that characterizes what we would expect from a "doctor of philosophy".

I guess that is the longer version of what you said: someone will know a lot about how airplanes fall apart, but not a whole lot about how to think clearly when confronted with evidence.