Moon Landings and the Scientific Method ( conspiracy )

submitted by gladly

This may be kooky, but isn't it a requirement in science to have independent researchers confirm your results?

According to this textbook:

To qualify as scientific evidence, observations must be quantitative and repeatable.

The way it works, is that one makes an experiment, then publishes it in a reputable science magazine. Other scientists see what was done, and then redo the experiment by themselves to confirm or refute your results. This is the method by which science works in practice, to my knowledge.

Now, if we look at the moon landings from this perspective, they are a fail. There was only one experimenter: NASA. There was no independent confirmation that it can be done. They didn't even try.

Yes, there is evidence, moon rocks and image and video footage and whatever, but that's not the point. The point is that this greatest feat of humanity has never been confirmed by others to be possible. Thus, it is unscientific to regard it as anything more than a theory.

What do you think?

cyclops1771

Not necessarily.

I think the crux of scientific theory is the question, "Is the experiment falsifiable?" By that I mean, is it even POSSIBLE to prove something happened or didn't happen?

For example, the hypothesis that "the earth really only 6000 years old, but it was MADE to look older to putting in weird fossils to test your faith" is an non-falsifiable one. You cannot PROVE that every item that "proves" the Earth is older than 6000 years isn't a trick placed there by God. The existence of God itself is a non-falsifiable hypothesis. No test can be run to prove this. Human soul, strength of love, etc. are all non-scientific things.

Going to the moon IS falsifiable. It can be accomplished. The Saturn V blueprints exist. Just go build one to the exacting and intense requirements for a few billion bucks and go test it. Being abhorrently expensive does not mean it's not science, it means it's not worth the extreme effort to reproduce. The Soviets were close to repeating, but the hero of the Soviet Union that convinced them they could launch Gagarin into space didn't believe in the lunar sized, 3 stage rocket, and went with the N1 program, which failed catastrophically numerous times. There is an excellent book called Red Moon Rising by Matthew Brzezinski (yes the son of THAT Brzezinski) that details the history of the Soviet space program.

gladly

Just go build one to the exacting and intense requirements for a few billion bucks and go test it.

Well, that is the point exactly. It COULD be done, in theory, but it has NOT been done in practice. So, it's not verified.

I COULD have a Ferrari, in theory. But, in practice I do NOT have one. That still leaves me without a Ferrari.

cyclops1771

Lack of trying does not make it unverifiable though.

gladly

Yes, Ferraris do exist. But I don't have one. I can not be called a Ferrari owner, and I can't join a Ferrari club, because I don't have a Ferrari. Similarly, the NASA can't join the scientific peer-approved method, because they don't have it.

cyclops1771

Hmmm. That's interesting. Experiment conducted by one organization, but by 9 different crews/teams of experimenters. I'd think that counts?

Either way, the methods are there to be reviewed and repeated. The data collected is there to be reviewed and repeated. SO, if I invented cold fusion, and was generating all the power the Earth needs forever, if nobody else builds one, then it doesn't exist? I don't think you can take cost or apathy and declare something isn't real because no one ever repeated it. That's like saying, "If I impale myslef with a red hot poker, I won;t really get hurt until someone repeats what I did!"

I think it is a case where the answer "Can we go to the moon?" has been proven multiple times to be "Yes," but until another organization does it, then it is still in a hypothetical status.

gladly

Separate comment, because it's a separate idea IMO.

SO, if I invented cold fusion, and was generating all the power the Earth needs forever, if nobody else builds one, then it doesn't exist?

We have such a device. It's called the Sun. And nobody in their right mind denies its existence. But if you claim to have built it yourself, I'd like to see not just the plans and instructions, I'd like to see someone else build a similar one next to it, so that we can verify it's really your invention.

gladly

9 different crews/teams

Still, they all had the same boss and the same source of funding. Not what you'd want to see for an independent peer review process.

declare something isn't real

Didn't say it's not real. Didn't say it is. All I said it's not peer reviewed, and what that means is ...

until another organization does it, then it is still in a hypothetical status

Bingo. That was my point all along.

cyclops1771

We sure took the long way around to say "I agree with your point!"

gladly

LOL

B3bomber

Bad analogy. Other people definitely have Ferraris.

gladly

See my other comment above.

drj2

Stretch any further with that, and you’ll touch the moon.

StatusQuip

I think you are a product of public education and don't understand the difference between exploration and experimentation.

gladly

Aaah, the classic " I have no idea what you said, but everybody else thinks you're wrong, so I can insult you freely because for sure others will agree and then they will see how smart I am " type of post.

Cheers.

StatusQuip

You sound like a person that gets blinded by semantics and will never see the full picture. I hope you find joy in finding mundane conspiracy where none exists.

gladly

All these describe you perfectly.