XKCD: It's more than a comic

Those experiments have been replicated by basically everyone. It's not just the US. Even the USSR never doubted the Moon landings.

But yeah, I know what you mean. There's an arbitrary and inconsistent degree of skepticism. "I won't believe the laser experiments if you didn't do them yourself, but I will believe this anonymous source that claims to have heard from someone at the pub that the US didn't have rockets that could fly all the way up there at that time."

Here's something I'm curious about: How old do these 'sceptics' tend to be? Because I kind of feel like it's a bit generational- these theories are generated by people floundering to explanation something shocking that happened in their lifetime. If so, you might expect these things to die off slowly, as it becomes less of a living memory, but not really take on many new adherents after the first few years.

Kinda makes you wonder what they think we were doing with those rockets.

The Moon landing "skeptics" I've met are generally too young to remember the event itself - at least the first one.

I don't find any point in trying to argue with conspiracy theorists. Just let them believe that the moon is actually made of cake, not cheese, or whatever silliness they heard about.

I suppose it's kind of similar between atheists arguing with creationists and skeptics arguing with conspiracy theorists: neither side is likely to change the other's mind, but usually only one side has and open mind. Still, it can be good to have that argument even with someone who won't listen properly because you just might get some question or idea in their mind that they'll return to later, and possibly that'll lead to them opening up.

Say you're arguing with a creationist who trusts Answers in Genesis for information about radiometric dating, or a Moon landing hoax theorist who cites "experts" who don't believe NASA had the technology to get to the Moon. They've got their sources and they'll assert that theirs are at least as plausible as those cited by the other side, but if you start talking about the ways that each source arrives at their conclusion, or the limits of their arguments, you might get somewhere.

I might tell a creationist citing Answers in Genesis that most radiometric dating isn't using Carbon-14, and that it's possible to use multiple different methods (based on different elements) and get results that support each other. Perhaps they won't believe me on the day, but there's a chance they'll remember that bit about using multiple elements and that might set them on an excursion to a library (or just a Wiki Walk) to learn about other methods of radiometric dating. If this happens they'll learn that their original source was extremely ignorant or dishonest (with AIG it's the latter), so hopefully they'll start looking at other sources more. It might be years before they change their mind, and that argument with me will have been only one of many that led them in the right direction, but it'll have contributed that seed of doubt.

Similarly, if a Moon landing conspiracy theorist starts going on about the technology not being there yet for the Moon landing at the time, I can mention that bit about the mirrors. Again, the conspiracy theorist might not believe me then and there but there's a chance they'll remember it when they're home and look it up. If they do they'll start reading about independent confirmations of this, and land on a variety of sources all getting results that confirm that the mirrors are there and the technology is there.

I've changed my mind about some of the political positions and beliefs I've held in the past based on discussions that didn't convince me at the time, by remembering the arguments that I'd heard and looking up the information I'd need to prove or disprove them. I know there are plenty of people who won't do this but most people, if you can get them interested in at least looking for information you know they'll be able to find, will eventually make the effort to have a look and a think on their own, private time. So the effect of that discussion will be delayed. People are often reluctant to change their position in public, so sometimes just planting a seed of doubt or suggesting a line of inquiry is the best you can get on the day; and to me that's plenty.

This is my favorite video about the moon landing conspiracy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU

I like how it goes at the problem a different way. Rather than show why it has to be real, it shows why it can't be fake. In the end, it's probably not going to convince many people that already believe it's a hoax, though. people like that usually don't listen to logic and reason, and prefer to trust their incorrect gut instinct.

Terminator reference time!

Took me a second to realize that he's plugging in the very keyboard he's complaining about

edited 5th Oct '15 4:04:14 PM by stevebat

Food Rule. What's he talking about? Shrimp, oysters, and squid are delicious.

... How could oysters possibly have a face? And shrimp pretty clearly do.

Well, I eat any seafood unless I have to rid of its shell myself. More specifically, mussels are OK because they open when cooked, but shrimps are just too much of a hassle.

You don't have to buy them with the shells still on.

So, Randall's not into dishes that use fish heads? Although I will have to admit that's more of an Asian cuisine thing.

As for the Alt Text

GHOST SQUID.

They're just like Ghost Armor, except they smell like butter.

Nah, he probably already knows they have faces.

I don't eat squid and oysters. I eat shrimp, but of course I'd prefer having them as tempura (and thus no need to remove the thin shells).

Clams and scallops are tasty, but they're about the only shellfish I eat. Pretty certain neither of them have faces.

My food rule: No raw meat. That covers sushi, sashimi oysters, steak tartare, etc. Some things, microbiology classes just ruin for you.

edited 7th Oct '15 2:04:59 PM by Galadriel

I don't eat seafood because I don't like the taste. It's very simple.

I don't like the taste, I don't like overfishing, and I might be allergic to scallops. I generally try to avoid seafood, unless it's some good Maine lobster that I have maybe once a year.

Come on, put some trust in your immune system !

It's my understanding that the reason sushi is safe-ish is because it's treated in vinegar?

I am a big fan of all kinds of seafood, but I won't eat it raw. Well, most of it. Sushi is acceptable.

I'm allergic to raw food, although regardless of that I don't like sushi/sashimi anyway.